Is like...negative GDP even possible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is like...negative GDP even possible?
Please don't ask that question before Donald Trump has definitely lost the election because I don't want to find out.
Is like...negative GDP even possible?
If it were, it'd mean your country has collapsed.
Is like...negative GDP even possible?If it were, it'd mean your country has collapsed.
it would mean that you're destroying/eroding more than you're making.
which would be like, walking dead level disaster
"It's not going to help with entitlements" - confused moderator
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's not going to help with entitlements" - confused moderator
"Dammit, Trump, I can't input the Konami Code for you if you keep interrupting me here!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Trickle down economics works!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is like...negative GDP even possible?If it were, it'd mean your country has collapsed.it would mean that you're destroying/eroding more than you're making.
which would be like, walking dead level disaster
zombies are so cliche, I hope it's werewolves instead...or Fishmen.
"Such a nasty women"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as bashing the fox bias is fun, he is genuinely getting a lot more policy out of the pair than the other debates.
"Such a nasty women"
Does that mean Trump lost, even with the moderator trying to help him?
Also, "this'll be the final time, to your delight, that you'll be on this stage together".
He's like a kid in the second hour of church and can't control himself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump: "Such a nasty woman. Who shoots barbs at someone when they're talking? So rude."
As much as bashing the fox bias is fun, he is genuinely getting a lot more policy out of the pair than the other debates.
True...it just would be nice if the needling was less biased.
Y'arr! I be One Eye Trump!
Finally it's over.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen vacuums in space with more substance than those closing remarks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Clinton focused on a positive ending... Trump on the attack again. XD I do think Clinton solidly won that one, by the way.
"shouldn't be registered to vote"
"she shouldn't be allowed to run"
Trump. Keep digging that hole, and you'll eventually break the Earth's crust.
Tell me that toupee didn't come FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"No one has more respect for women than me...
"nasty woman!
I feel like there's a Gollum joke in there somewhere...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a Gollum joke in there somewhere...
Did Rudi Ghouliani make an appearance at the debate???
He was channeling Alex Jones when he started talking about the rally fights.
As much as bashing the fox bias is fun, he is genuinely getting a lot more policy out of the pair than the other debates.True...it just would be nice if the needling was less biased.
Yeah, but he was really owed one after Martha Raddatz literally started debating him on stage last week. Plus, I would rather him lose with a favorable moderator to remove that excuse from the table.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but he was really owed one after Martha Raddatz literally started debating him on stage last week. Plus, I would rather him lose with a favorable moderator to remove that excuse from the table.As much as bashing the fox bias is fun, he is genuinely getting a lot more policy out of the pair than the other debates.True...it just would be nice if the needling was less biased.What is the moderator supposed to do? Do they have any role in challenging blatant falsehoods or pushing debaters to actually respond to the questions? In one case, didn't Trump actually challenge her on the premise of a question?
How should a moderator deal with someone like Trump?
Cattle prod.
Hillary: List of reasons why Trump is putins puppet
Trump: I'm notta puppet YOU"RE a puppet!
*facepalm* Seriously? The presidential debate is down to i'm rubber you're glue?
|
|
Hillary: List of reasons why Trump is putins puppet
Trump: I'm notta puppet YOU"RE a puppet!
*facepalm* Seriously? The presidential debate is down to i'm rubber you're glue?
-_-
I distinctly remember that response from elementary school.
I also distinctly remember punching the people who said that.
They weren't that rubbery.
I have watched none of the debates.
I haven't watched news at all in years.
Yet, this thread, without context, has made me smile and laugh quite a bit at trump's expense, even without context.
I hope everything goes well, this year... Or at least, if trump does get elected, all of the senators come to a consensus that he's far too annoying and impeach him. Or he gets in a complicated spaghetti accident.
Regardless of what happens...
I will Probobly be quoting the phrase "small loan of a million dollars" till I die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Impeaching Trump just puts Pence in the big chair, and Pence is a full-on government dismantler with a big dose of hate for non-Christian, non-straight, non-white, and non-male people.
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.
Almost half of America's voting population is for Trump as president. You should be shocked and appalled already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't see any of this one, was at a meeting in Worcester where the comrades were planning their "Who's Afraid of Jill Stein?" public meeting next week, but I did just run into this article:
Who Needs to Make Anti-American Propaganda? Iran Is Just Broadcasting These Horrific Debates.
Im afraid of Somebody's sister....
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page. Clinton was broadly truthful - Trump, perhaps as expected, did quite a bit of lying and exaggerating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page. Clinton was broadly truthful - Trump, perhaps as expected, did quite a bit of lying and exaggerating.
I wish that we could get these reports without the editorializing and without the academic dishonesty on the part of the fact checkers.
Trump is an egregious liar without having to use parlor tricks to make him seem worse. But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."
The media is biased in favor of Clinton. We need to own and recognise that, and we need to accept that it is not helping her. Some modicum of freaking self-control is in order because it makes it very difficult to make the case for Clinton / against Trump when these reports are so obviously toyed with.
[/rant]
That's why it helps to read multiple fact-checking reports. XD
That said, Trump has repeatedly attacked, insulted, and abused the media for his own personal benefit. There are even some indications that he's trying to set himself up as a direct competitor when he loses the election - most probably as an even more Breitbart-style alt-right affair, and further segmenting an already-struggling industry.
It, uh, doesn't surprise me that they've decided to be less than totally kind to him now, especially given his long history of abusing those who've helped him (and they totally did in the primaries).
I would be shocked and appalled if he actually gets elected.Almost half of America's voting population is for Trump as president. You should be shocked and appalled already.
I've passed the stages shocked and appalled, and have gone through disgust to settle in depression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page. Clinton was broadly truthful - Trump, perhaps as expected, did quite a bit of lying and exaggerating.I wish that we could get these reports without the editorializing and without the academic dishonesty on the part of the fact checkers.
Trump is an egregious liar without having to use parlor tricks to make him seem worse. But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."
The media is biased in favor of Clinton. We need to own and recognise that, and we need to accept that it is not helping her. Some modicum of freaking self-control is in order because it makes it very difficult to make the case for Clinton / against Trump when these reports are so obviously toyed with.
[/rant]
The media's biased against Clinton. She's been hated and torn down in the media for years. Decades.
Despite that, they're tearing down Trump because Trump is dangerous. And because he's been attacking them - threatening lawsuits, tricking them into free publicity, basically picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
Edit: Also promised to weaken libel laws to make it easier to sue the media.
I don't see a media bias against Clinton this season (no comment about pre 2015). What I do see is a media that is unsure how to report a GOP witch hunt. I think in an effort to appear neutral that they are reporting on those things seriously instead of calling them witch hunts (which is unfortunate). But there has definitely been an effort this season to cut clips and frame reports to favor her, and an effort to cut clips and frame reports to denigrate him.
It is super important for me to get this point across. I think it is appropriate to praise and denigrate when appropriate, the problem is when the media flaunts its biases to the point where a casual observer can legitimately dismiss actual deplorable behavior being reported on because the reporting services have spent 15 months crying wolf and beating non-stories through wolf-shaped holes. Because, to that casual observer the surface of real wolves and wolf-shaped stories look alike.
I got a little too deep into that metaphor. Basically, academically dishonest practices leave the media without credibility to report on real issues when they arise.
That's why it helps to read multiple fact-checking reports. XD
That said, Trump has repeatedly attacked, insulted, and abused the media for his own personal benefit. There are even some indications that he's trying to set himself up as a direct competitor when he loses the election - most probably as an even more Breitbart-style alt-right affair, and further segmenting an already-struggling industry.
It, uh, doesn't surprise me that they've decided to be less than totally kind to him now, especially given his long history of abusing those who've helped him (and they totally did in the primaries).
It isn't surprising at all, but journalistic integrity has to enter somewhere. It makes it FAR more difficult to have conversations with casual observers who lean toward Trump when it so so obvious that he is being intentionally misconstrued/misquoted. Because like 85%+ of the time they don't need to mess with his quotes at all, he is just that bad. Why the need to be cute with the other 15% and wreck their credibility.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't surprising at all, but journalistic integrity has to enter somewhere.
Maybe you should provide some example of this supposed bias.
For example, one of the first questions Chris Wallace asked was along the lines of; 'How do you believe the Constitution should be interpreted? As a sort of 'living document' that can be changed and re-interpreted over time or as a fixed text like the founders intended?'
That was not just biased, but false. Most of the founders advanced the 'living document' view of constitutional interpretation (which Wallace grossly mischaracterized) rather than 'originalist' views favored by conservatives... like Wallace and Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page.But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."
I'd like to see some examples of what you're talking about. From the NYT fact-check page, please, since that's what you were criticizing.
What do you think they falsely edited to put Clinton in a good light, and what do you think they falsely edited to put Trump in a bad one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who want some of the highlights, here's the New York Times' fact-check page.But when the media plays these cute games with selective quote cuts (removing qualifying statements either before or after the quote, for example) and with cutesy quips, it just fans the flames of those who would chose to ignore these reports because of "bias."
I'd like to see some examples of what you're talking about. From the NYT fact-check page, please, since that's what you were criticizing.
What do you think they falsely edited to put Clinton in a good light, and what do you think they falsely edited to put Trump in a bad one?
Yeah Absolutely,
From the link, "Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons."
NTY Marked it "red" for lie/false. Even the strongest supporters of the deal (Ie, Kerry/Obama) note that at best it delays a nuclear Iran. The deal itself ends in 10 years time (edit: I realized after I may have misremembered the exact time frame and unfortunately I am not able to look that up right now for time constraints. But, needless to say, it is a finite amount of time if not actually 10 years. Mea Culpa), which then allows Iran to continue weapons development without economic sanctions penalty.
NTY marked it "red" because of the timeline, which doesn't contradict his claim at all.
From the link, Trump said "We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our businesses. We’re not making things anymore.”
NYT marked this as "red" as well. But they also deliberately cut off his qualifying comment which directly followed in the debate. He added, "relatively speaking" And it is true that we far less manufacturing jobs relative to the past.
NYT snipped the quote and fact checked their snip, not the full statement.
From the link, Clinton said “We have 33,000 people a year who die from guns.” in the context of gun violence. While making a case about keeping guns away from dangerous actors. The statistic however is including deaths from suicide.
NYT marked this a "green" for true. This should have been marked "yellow" for misleading. The NYT even put the information about suicides in their blurb box but still left it green.
From the link, "Mr. Trump said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was forced to apologize for negative comments about him."
NYT marked this as "yellow" for questionable, because she wasn't formally/publicly made to apologise by a superior of some kind. However, this was clearly an instance to bowing to political pressure. She knew she misspoke, and she knew she needed to apologise. She made herself apologise. Trump's characterization of that was entirely appropriate.
I just want to be clear. I am not saying all reporting on him is biased. I am not saying he is good/right/etc overall. All I am saying is that tipping biases like these make it difficult to overcome an argument from casual observers that media bias is influencing reporting (because it is) and that any given story isn't exaggerated. BECAUSE so much of what he legitimately does sounds exaggerated to any sane person (including Mike freaking Pence). There is enough outlandish BS that falls out his mouth that we don't need to manufacture more.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the link, "Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons."
NTY Marked it "red" for lie/false.
Which... it was. Even if your 'they can get nukes after the deal is over' argument were true (it isn't)... that does NOT support the claim that the deal itself allows Iran nukes. Indeed, it demonstrates that Iran is prevented from having nuclear weapons for the length of the deal... it prevents Iran from getting them... which is a vast improvement over the timeline of just a few months to a nuclear Iran before the deal was enacted.
But they also deliberately cut off his qualifying comment which directly followed in the debate. He added, "relatively speaking" And it is true that we far less manufacturing jobs relative to the past.
You left out part of the NYT's summation: "America has never made more things. The nation’s manufacturing output is at an all-time high."
Et cetera. Sure it isn't your bias that is at issue here?
From the link, "Mr. Trump said the nuclear deal with Iran will “absolutely” let it obtain nuclear weapons."
NTY Marked it "red" for lie/false.
Which... it was. Even if your 'they can get nukes after the deal is over' argument were true (it isn't)... that does NOT support the claim that the deal itself allows Iran nukes. Indeed, it demonstrates that Iran is prevented from having nuclear weapons for the length of the deal... it prevents Iran from getting them... which is a vast improvement over the timeline of just a few months to a nuclear Iran before the deal was enacted.
But they also deliberately cut off his qualifying comment which directly followed in the debate. He added, "relatively speaking" And it is true that we far less manufacturing jobs relative to the past.You left out part of the NYT's summation: "America has never made more things. The nation’s manufacturing output is at an all-time high."
Et cetera. Sure it isn't your bias that is at issue here?
Yes, I'm quite sure. My natural bias is in favor of supporting Clinton. Thats why I drew attention to that basically every time I've posted about this.
The summation of the deal leaves an Iran freely open to pursue nuclear ambitions without sanction. The END of the deal is in fact PART of the deal. Again, this is acknowledged by Kerry and Obama.
Trump was clearly talking about manufacturing JOBS not output. If you want to squabble about the semantics there then that is fine, but it at best moves the statement to a "yellow" for misleading. Parsing text for a gotcha while ignoring intent is also part of the bias I'm talking about.
|
Trump was clearly talking about manufacturing JOBS not output. If you want to squabble about the semantics there then that is fine, but it at best moves the statement to a "yellow" for misleading. Parsing text for a gotcha while ignoring intent is also part of the bias I'm talking about.
Ummm
"We’re not making things anymore.”