Tweet
I have no issues with criticism of Trump’s words. Dude says stupid ****. We should focus on his policies and whether or not they work, but we won’t. We will focus on how Trump fits or doesn’t fit our narrative of what we believe the world should be.
-
Livin the dream-
I know. Those people that tried to -ahem- "intercept" his desk top reports failed more than they succeeded, apparently. At least according to Woodward. -
Without paying attention to the solid and positive policies that are coming from the White House which include Mattis' and Kelly's positive influences, as well as a strong economy, Woodward is only giving a part of the story. While Woodward is welcome to being a critic of the President, he should tell the whole story. The whole story also includes the recognition that some people who are critical of the President have reasons to lie about the story they tell. -
You DO have issues with criticism of Trump's words because you always say they're meaningless. We've talked about it about 100 times, but this is not just some objective truth. You can't just say "all the evidence says results are the ONLY thing that matters."
If results were all that mattered, you can justify all sorts of atrocities. If actual "policies" are all that matters, you don't account for worsening ally relationships. You miss out on ANY consideration for one-off decision making. Like, how could a prior "policy" decision have informed how Bush would react to 9/11? And if you're not going to care about just blatant lies, you cannot have any confidence about how the politician will continue to act.
Maybe you think policies don't matter, but it's not just objectively true that all we should focus on are policies or that EVERY reasonable person would only look to policies. Reasonable people can disagree on this, and you don't have to try to shut down each discussion by saying "Yep, Trump is dumb, but the policies are good."
-
-
Indeed. The impact the book's review had on me at first has softened greatly since I thought on the matter a little more. Most of the initial shock was coming on the back of Woodward's reputation alone. But when you digest the reality that all his "sources" are anonymous and the fact that Trump has nearly 90% of Washington dreaming about killing him when they sleep at night... it isn't hard to imagine a few turncoats who might be willing to exaggerate a little...Originally posted by ShockingButTrue View Post
Woodward's sources are all anonymous, but it's taken as the gospel truth to those with itching ears. Maybe omarosa was one of 'em? obama holdovers? Because it sure wasn't Mattis or Kelley. None verified.
What next, a tape where he says the n-word? Oh, wait...
It's just more of the same we've seen for 20 months now. He's trollin'.
One thing people have to remember is that the POTUS is surrounded by a legion of advisers and assistants who no doubt attempt at every corner (consciously or subconsciously) to affect his decisions with their services (or lack thereof). It's just human nature. Now "removing" documents on his desk in order to "save the world" (as re-narrated by the Fake News media) lends itself easily to comparisons of a small child having his hand yanked away from an electrical outlet. Add in the continual efforts of his opponents to paint him as unfit for office since the moment he decided to run, and you have yourself a very "sellable" story - especially to the writer's intended audience, Libtard Nation.
I have no doubt that Trump talks "freely" around the White House and has no qualms about calling a dumb southerner, a "dumb southerner". I could definitely see him talking about one of his cabinet members looking like a baby and having his diaper changed on national television. That sounds like Trump. He said things like that to people he hardly knew in front of a national audience during the debates. That penchant for free-wheeling trash talk is partly what got him elected. Of course he might never have said some of those things either, or said them in a very different tone or context than the author (or source) would have you believe. All it takes is a change in facial expression while you call a person an a$$hole to totally reverse the implied meaning.
The current POTUS is never going to radically change the country (world), he simply doesn't have enough time or power, which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. Trump's goal while he is president is to make a dent in the gridlock that has plagued this nation for so long. He wants to make as many common sense decisions as possible before his term(s) are up and then see what sticks. It doesn't take a genius to make common sense decisions, just someone with common sense. In Washington it also takes balls. Trump has balls... believe me!
T
...:cool:Comment
-
I know... maybe the anonymous source is Bernstein? It wouldn't surprise anyone in the least. Isn't he CNN's primary anonymous source? Or, is the anonymous source CNN itself? The ohr's? Hmm...Last edited by ShockingButTrue; September 5, 2018, 02:49 PM.
-
-
I think it'll be interesting to see if Bernie's Stop BEZOS bill goes anywhere. The idea is that large companies would be required to pay a tax to cover the amount of federal assistance its own employees get. So, theoretically, a company like Amazon would get taxed for having workers that make so little they still qualify for certain federal assistance programs: http://thehill.com/policy/technology...lfare-programs
Seems like an idea that could get bipartisan support:Comment
-
Interesting. How far do we take this? Nike pays workers in Vietnam about $1.60 per day. Should Nike, and similar companies, be taxed to recoup military and foreign policy expenditures? -
shockfan89_ - Trump probably thinks so given his inclination toward tariffs, but I think that's definitely outside the purview of this particular bill which is focusing solely on US government costs associated with domestic assistance programs. Not so sure I think there's a ton of military or foreign policy expenditures associated with keeping Vietnam in a place that they're willing to provide cheap labor, but maybe I'm being naive.Last edited by jdshock; September 5, 2018, 04:19 PM. -
Just curious if there is support for this bill, why we wouldn't also look at US government costs for jobs being outsourced to other countries. Wouldn't you agree that Nike is profiting from outsourcing shoe production to Vietnam for cheap labor and that results in less income tax being paid in the US?
If you don't look at companies that outsource labor costs to save money, wouldn't you be encouraging tech companies to move jobs overseas rather than pay the increased costs from a mandated wage in the US?
-
-
Why don't they just go get jobs at another company for more money?Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
WuDrWu - it's not just directed at Amazon, they're just the one really fighting the issue.
The subsidization is from the federal aid being paid to company's full time employees. We are allowing big companies to pay a low enough rate that people are getting federal assistance to live. If a person needs 25k to live and Amazon is only paying 5k, the us government is subsidizing the other 5.
Not necessarily taking a stance one way or the other, other than saying there probably aren't too many policies endorsed by Bernie and Tucker Carlson. -
Curious as to how this applies to McDonalds, Target, and other non-tech companies that are making plenty of money but have entry level employees making smaller wages... Is this just another approach at instituting a higher minimum wage or living wage and they are going after Amazon first since Bezos is so rich? -
shockfan89_ - they're not going "after" Amazon first. Amazon has just publicly opposed this policy. The bill as written, as I understand it, would apply to companies with over 500 employees.
But, yeah, obviously it's another attempt to increase stagnant wages. I imagine McDonalds and Target are probably going to get hit less hard just simply because they have a ton of younger employees who would be less likely to qualify for federal benefits. Certainly, they would still get hit somewhat, though.
-
-
No one should ever take responsibility for their own failures. The government should take care of everyone all the time.Comment
-
jdshock said:
You DO have issues with criticism of Trump's words because you always say they're meaningless. We've talked about it about 100 times, but this is not just some objective truth. You can't just say "all the evidence says results are the ONLY thing that matters."
If results were all that mattered, you can justify all sorts of atrocities. If actual "policies" are all that matters, you don't account for worsening ally relationships. You miss out on ANY consideration for one-off decision making. Like, how could a prior "policy" decision have informed how Bush would react to 9/11? And if you're not going to care about just blatant lies, you cannot have any confidence about how the politician will continue to act.
Maybe you think policies don't matter, but it's not just objectively true that all we should focus on are policies or that EVERY reasonable person would only look to policies. Reasonable people can disagree on this, and you don't have to try to shut down each discussion by saying "Yep, Trump is dumb, but the policies are good."
My response:
I actually think Trump SHOULD be criticized for what he says. In previous context, it was suggested that anyone that can support Trump, when he says terrible things, is a bad person. I have argued that what he says is not important in relationship to how he acts (i.e. what policy he supports). I stand by this as a consistent thought. Whether or not it has been articulated appropriately is a different matter.
I’m not fully understanding your second paragraph, which seems to be the thrust of your argument. How one acts, in my estimation, is the best way to determine one’s values. How one speaks is the best way to determine how one thinks.
I agree that reasonable people can have different opinions on what matters in forming opinions on persons/ideas/policies. I do take offense to the idea that if I support some of the things that someone does, then I am a bad person because of some of the things that person says (or even does if I disagree with action). It is not my attempt to “shut down” discussion. It’s just not a convincing argument to me. Perhaps it is convincing to someone else, but I haven’t seen evidence of that.
I don’t believe that what Trump says is the heart of the disagreement between factions. I think it is much deeper than that, which is where I want the conversation to be. Certainly sometimes you have to start at the surface level, but what about Trump’s speech don’t you like? Maybe, he’s a liar and a hypocrite. Okay, well if he wasn’t a liar and a hypocrite, would you be a Republican? I’m guessing no. So, what is it that you disagree with from a Republican policy perspective that makes you dislike Trump?Last edited by wufan; September 5, 2018, 07:02 PM.Livin the dreamComment
-
Well... I don't know about that. Look, if someone has racist ideals or is sympathetic to racist viewpoints, I hope liberals will call that out every single time. If republicans are okay with the ideals that democrats are calling racist, then fine. Elect that person. Don't get someone who is more extreme on those issues.
Pence would be a terrible president for gay rights. Romney and his "binder full of women" did not instill confidence that he would be a good president for women. But that's kind of the nature of progressivism. People who are passionate about minority rights or gay rights or women's rights or whatever it may be tend to be more liberal. And conservatives probably aren't going to nominate someone who is MORE progressive on those issues by the very nature of conservativism. Conservativism greatly values the status quo (by definition). So legislative changes to protect or progress these groups tend to be democratic focal points.
So republicans should either (1) decide these issues are important, and adopt similar policy positions as democrats; (2) decide these issues are important and show how their current policy positions or the status quo are key to these issues; or (3) decide the issues are unimportant. But I think a significant portion of the country would prefer someone like Pence who is the normal level of behind-the-times on these issues as opposed to someone like Trump who is actively trying to dismantle progress on certain of these issues.
Democrats are not the ones who voted for Trump. Maybe republicans elected Trump as a response to Democrats, but please don't pin him on us. That's just silly. Y'all could've easily elected one of the normal options. -
"Y'all could've easily elected one of the normal options."
Yes, and we would have lost in a landslide to HC.
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlAD...XUl2/giphy.gif
-
-
This Cruz guy is starting to make some sense. He see's the big picture...
Comment
-
I'm sure Trump diehards are gonna write this off since it is "anonymous," but whoa...Comment
-
It's not that there's not some kind of truths in what's written there. But why withhold who you are? If you're the actual person, a senior staffer, you're so damned good at what you do that you're going to get paid tons more working elsewhere. Plus your book deal is going to be worth millions (assuming you really exist). To say you're in fear of losing your job smacks of falsehood. It just isn't believable to me, BUT I freely admit there are comments that are believable. Just my .02
Not a Trump die hard. Did want Trump lots more than Hillary. Still do. Always will. Crazy tweets over Socialism any and every day. If you want to get rid of Trump for Pence, I'm good with that. -
WuDrWu, to play devil's advocate for this person (and assuming this isn't their attempt to get the book deal you are mentioning): not everyone is solely motivated by money. If they feel like their actions are necessary to better the country, then getting fired prevents them from doing that.
Money isn't the only reason to want to avoid losing a job.Last edited by jdshock; September 5, 2018, 07:37 PM. -
What about the ones who aren't "die-hards" who voted for him? How do you think they'll write this off?
Either is smart enough to know they didn't vote for anonymous.Last edited by ShockingButTrue; September 5, 2018, 09:08 PM.
-
-
I actually don’t have an issue with this article except the part about the 25th amendment. It seems plausible to me.Originally posted by jdshock View PostLivin the dreamComment
-
Yeah, Cruz is such a genius ROFLMAO.
I suppose that's why he is in a dead heat in the election polls.
Note this is Texas, where our Republican attorney general is under felony indictment, yet is handily ahead in his race.
That ought to tell you how much Cruz is liked in Texas. If he were really smart, he would find a way to improve his personality and appeal.Comment
-
Ted Cruz is like a wooden robot make out of cardboard.
Great mind though. Poor bastard is just in the wrong line of work. He needs to be kept as far from the public as possible. Get his ass on a federal court ASAP!
Had there been a Cruz - Clinton presidential debate, half of America would have slit their wrists in boredom.
T
...:cool:
-
-
A little surprised by the reaction the NYT article so far. That's a pretty insane statement about what is going on in our government right now. As much as I dislike Trump, we can't just be okay with unnamed, unelected officials completely dictating policy.Comment
-
Do you think it could be the same person who authored the pee-pee story? It wouldn't be too shocking if that was the case would it? -
"we can't just be okay with unnamed, unelected officials completely dictating policy"
Stop trolling now lol.
This is the "People's Press"... YOUR press. Be proud of them!
What a 5-star **** show this NY Times is. They should change their name to the New York Enquirer.
T
...:cool:
-
-
Looks like the times will end up owing their subscribers another apology... Get over it already. The hag lost in 2016 fair and square.Last edited by ShockingButTrue; September 5, 2018, 09:14 PM.Comment
-
For this to come out on the heels of the Woodward book is suspicious at best. This is very similar to the one-two punch strategy all of Trump's opponents have used since he entered politics. I mean, why on earth, if you really care about your country and party, do you release this treasonous op-ed saying nearly exactly the same thing as the Woodward book (which was designed to affect the mid-terms)? Oh, it was to "put our minds at ease" while you (and others) steer the ship? ROFL!Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Afraid that the book wasn't gaining as much traction as you'd hoped more like it. I know, I know... you're just trying to save us from the fantastic economy, talks with N. Korea, neutering of Syria, elimination of ISIS, etc. etc....
A TRUE Republican would be doing their DAMNEDEST to make Trump look like a God so this golden era of America could continue. I mean if I was in his cabinet I would change his diaper, feed him baby formula, and learn to maintain his horror show coif if need be - all to make sure a ***** Libtard didn't replace him or take over the House.
Amateur Hour.
This is Deep State skullduggery at its finest. Trump should put his entire staff through a lie detector test and root out the rats once and for all.
It's clear now that the Woodward book was a news cycle flop (thankfully) after witnessing this prayer.
***** deranged Libtards lol.
T
...:cool:Comment
-
#5063.2
jdshock commented
1 hour ago
WuDrWu, to play devil's advocate for this person (and assuming this isn't their attempt to get the book deal you are mentioning): not everyone is solely motivated by money. If they feel like their actions are necessary to better the country, then getting fired prevents them from doing that.
Money isn't the only reason to want to avoid losing a job.
Nobody responsible for that op-ed cares for the country. They care (pine) for Hillary.
Anybody working closely with Trump would know that this kind of rubbish is only going to make "matters" worse. Yeah, you are worried about his mercurial behavior so you rush off to the NY Failing Times and help orchestrate the biggest troll on Donald to date. Yeah, that's going to make us all a lot safer from the "overgrown 5th grader"......... *rolls eyes*
Amateur hour.
Please don't tell me you are on board regarding the motives of this story and source JDShock. Don't make me feel like I've overvalued your reasoning skills.
T
...:cool:Comment
-
Anyone claiming to be a true conservative that goes to the NY Times to tell this is not a conservative. They are a beltway whore. I believe this is a real person, but not sure I believe it. They may believe it in their mind, but their ego is out of control. We'll know who it is eventually."When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
If it is a real person, you can damn sure believe the opposite of everything he/she said to be true/false. Probably female, and a democrat, etc.
As absolute of an unmitigated, sophomoric, incredulous, and dare one say, "hopeful," grandiose (jihad anyone) presentation of a psy op anyone has ever seen. This gal makes Alex Jones look like Edward R. Murrow.
And look, what a strange coincidence, it was printed by the times within 24 hours of press releases about woodwards book. Haven't seen that playbook before. It usually happens just before or just after (Kavanaugh) a Presidential victory. Maybe the President is on the verge of declassifying certain documents after all? There's going to be some serious turbulence between now and Sept. 20. Just imagine what shenanigans will take place if RBG moves on in the next several months to a year?Last edited by ShockingButTrue; September 6, 2018, 12:51 AM.
-
Comment