President Trump

[SezMe]

Her margin was extremely localized.

How in the world can you call the third largest state "extremely localized"?

 

[Darat]

I think this bears repeating. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are known to have looted billions of dollars from state industries being privatized; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents falsely convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents murdered; Putin has ordered invasions of neighboring countries.

Why in the world would Donald Trump like someone like this?
...snip...

It illustrates how he only views the world through the prism of his narcissism. Putin has not done or said anything bad about Trump, therefore to Trump he's a "neutral". Or rather in terms of how Trump will see it, Putin likes/respects Trump because for Trump that is the default position.

 

[SezMe]

I was agreeing to the distinction between interference with the election by, say, hacking voting machines or stuffing ballot-boxes, and influencing the outcome by influencing voters. I'm not aware of any accusations of Russian interference in that sense.

Quantifying the influence of Russia via its WikiLeaks arm is obviously difficult, given the decades already spent demonising the Clintons. Personally, I think the Comey intervention had the more significant effect but I'm sure historians will never stop arguing about it.

Here, I'll state the relative influence of the various factors; I know everyone will absolutely agree with me.

• Three decades of besmirching the Clinton's put her campaign at a disadvantage from the get go.
• A tilting of the electoral college to small states that tend to be conservative added substantially to that disadvantage.
• A poor election strategy by the Dems regarding state-by-state emphasis exacerbated that disadvantage even more.
• Russian interference by dribbling out email scandal stuff kept the (non)controversy constantly in the news, especially FOX. This made it extremely difficult for her to get any substantial share of the swing vote.
• Comey **** (pooped) all over the election. Strike that: Comey had diarrhea all over the Clinton campaign. July was bad. October and November were worse. Comey was the straw that broke the camel's back.
  
  So Trump won.
  
  In my opinion, Comey should be fired. Actually, Obama should have fired him the day he made his "careless" statement. A trial regarding treason is not out of the question.

 

[SezMe]

So just normal media behaviour then

You seem to be saying that the "media" are one-sided with respect to their dirt slinging. Is that the case? If so, what evidence supports your claim?

That is pretty much my response on this too.

I invite you to respond to my questions to Noztradamus.

 

[SezMe]

Propaganda can be so amazing for its disconnect from reality. We have to detach from, say, the direct published evidence of Saudi Arabia lavishing millions on the Clintons including a Saudi prince claiming credit for 20% of the cost of Hillary's campaign out of Riyadh.

Link?

But we should argue endlessly about Russia and send all the investigative agencies out to see if Trump was somehow influenced. In one case the public record is amazing really, for the millions involved, the Russian uranium deal and money from Russia to the Clintons too - and in the other case absolutely nothing in the pubic record.

Link?

But it is over for both the mainstream media, the globalists, and the PC virtue-signalers.

What does it mean to be "over" for the mainstream media? Will the NYT go out of business? The WSJ? The Chicago Tribune? NBC? CBS? KNX? WGN?

What does it mean to be "over" for the globalists? Start by telling me who they are, specifically.

What does it mean to be "over" for the "PC virtue-signalers"? Start by telling me what that phrase even means then tell me who they are, specifically.

The swamp is going to be drained.

What, exactly, does that mean?

Why the third person voice. You mean, I think, "Trump is going to drain the swamp."

Given his selection of advisors and cabinet, nothing could be further from the truth. The east-coast elites and insiders will be more in control of the Trump Administration than any in our lifetime. Do you still believe that the swamp will be drained?

The press pool is going to expand to include real journalists now.

The implication is that the press pool is not now filled with "real journalists". Is Brett Bair not a real journalist? How about Chris Wallace? Who are the "real" journalists that will be joining the press pool?

The more of them there are, the less able the Deep State is to control the narrative.

I recognize all the words, but put together this way leaves me confused. What do you mean?

 

[SezMe]

But in all these cases, institutions actually did something to erode trust. They shouldn't be protected from that.

Whooooosh.

 

[Sideroxylon]

A billionaire developer of high-end luxury accomodation and his billionaire pals are going to drain the swamp. It's just one tribe of swamp denizens out and the creature from the black lagoon and his muddy pals in.

 

[Sherkeu]

So Clapper is calling the release of a "privately-prepared memorandum" as a leak.

That is semantics that are unrelated to the lie Trump is promoting that the intelligence agency is the source of the leaks.

I think you've missed the issue, perhaps you aren't aware of Trump's specific accusation. Allow me to clarify that for you:

BBC: Trump condemns spy agency 'leak' of 'fake news'

Huff-Po: Trump Accuses CIA Director Of Leaking ‘Fake News’ About Russian Dossier

So your little foray into the meaning of the word, leak, is a complete side track to the issue, Trump claiming falsely the US intelligence agency is the source of a dossier that was in reality was a "privately-prepared memorandum".

Wrong. Multiple "officials" and "National Security Officials" leaked to CNN the specifics of Clappers classified meeting AND described the contents of the memo the IC had prepared. This is what Clapper refers to as the "leaks appearing in the press".

I agree that Trump is completely wrong to randomly accuse high-level intelligence officials. I said so a few pages back if you recall. He took a bad situation and made it worse.
But he is not wrong that there were people who had direct knowledge of the briefing and went to the press and blabbed. Hours later, the whole world has the dusted-off dossier. Coincidence? You could argue that these leaky officials simply had no clue what would happen. You could argue that buzzfeed would have done it anyway. You could do that.

You did say " A leak, and in particular the leaks Trump is referring to are leaks from public employees in federal jobs who have access to the information because of their job."

^^This is indeed what happened. We just don't know who they were. Perhaps it was national security officials in the WH staff and Trump just doesnt know the Executive org chart to point his accusing twitter fingers over there too.

-----------------------------------------------------
I guess if you find it credible, then releasing it is a great public service to America, revealing the sordid underbelly of our new evil overlord.

I see an obvious pile of unprofessional nonsense. It's as if there very little effort to even make it believable.

You want to know what Trump was doing in 2013? He was in Moscow- boasting how the gays were so happy Ms. Universe and it's gay host were coming there during Putin's harsh anti-gay crackdown. He was openly violating Russian laws.

If I wrote this dossier, I would have added some juicy intel that included this verifiable event.

 

[Mumbles]

I strongly disagree. Trust is hard to earn and easy to destroy.

Take the current status of police, especially those in big cities. Da Fuzz used to be pretty well respected, I think. Then a shoot here, a beating there and that respect gets substantially eroded. Then a cop lies in court here and some black guy dies in prison and the respect is completely shattered.

Well, in truth, police in such communities have, for the most part, never worked to earn trust in the first place. So, not the best example, however...

But they're going to have to be squeaky clean for years before some general respect is granted.

Same process works at the national/international level and at the person level. The Russians can do a lot of harm by covertly maligning our most critical institutions. Take justice as an example. If they could impugn the integrity of the court system (which is already in poor shape) with the result that people began to seriously question it judgements, then the fabric of civil society would be rent.

In short, trust is ALWAYS vulnerable no matter how solid. Attempts to weaken trust in democratic institutions should be taken VERY seriously.

This is definitely true. And quite natural, when you think about it. It takes a lot to trust someone with what, potentially, could ruin or end your life. That's just self-preservation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The trickle down effect:

Last month a Greenwich CT Republican town councilman named Christopher von Keyserling was arrested on a charge of 4th degree sexual abuse, after von Keyserling allegedly "pinched" a female town employee "inappropriately" in the groin area. This followed a verbal confrontation during which von Keyserling reportedly said, "I love this new world, I no longer have to be politically correct," and called the town employee a "lazy, bloodsucking union employee."

When the woman reacted angrily to von Keyserling touching her he responded that if she told anyone it would be his word against hers and "no one will believe you." The woman did contact local police and, after officers viewed surveillance video and found it "consistent with the woman’s account," von Keyserling was arrested. Apparently von Keyserling's immediate reaction was to deny he had touched the woman. Then, through his attorney (apparently after learning there was video of the incident), admitted touching the woman but claimed it was "a playful gesture."

Link to a discussion of the incident on Snopes.com, which includes an image of the police report. It wound up on Snopes after some conservative Republicans apparently denied this happened and claimed it was a "fake news" report.

He just trumped the bitch why make a big deal over it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No.

Not very presidential of you then.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Take the current status of police, especially those in big cities. Da Fuzz used to be pretty well respected, I think. Then a shoot here, a beating there and that respect gets substantially eroded. Then a cop lies in court here and some black guy dies in prison and the respect is completely shattered.

I think this harkens back to an idealized past that never was.

You can go back to the 1980's and find numerous examples of police misconduct. I remember because some of the incidents sparked riots in and around Miami, where I lived and worked.

And I doubt police misconduct started then - it was just then that I started to become acutely aware of the problem.

But let me state again that most cops behave properly most of the time, at least in my experience. But rogue cops are hardly a recent invention.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think this harkens back to an idealized past that never was.

But it was easy to pretend that those things don't happen when there isn't video of them. Like for Laquan McDonnald with out the videos that finally got out people would take the cops words that he charged them with a knife. And any people who got upset could be written off as uppity blacks.

The systemic misconduct of police is finally infiltrating more peoples bubble and so it seems like a new problem.

 

[Solitaire]

Why? Because Putin does all the things Trump wishes he could do.

Not sure if...

P. S. Every time I pass a Liberty Tax Service office I now get the creeps.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why? Because Putin does all the things Trump wishes he could do.

Well Putin got the super bowl ring Trump was never able to get through his venture into football.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, not even close. Is that your problem here, you don't understand that a reputable company with a reputable investigator is turning out unconfirmed but inconclusive evidence?

If it is unconfirmed and inconclusive, it constitutes either allegation or speculation. It does NOT constitute evidence.

Your confirmation bias is causing you to dismiss a reputable source.

Incorrect. My logical skill and reasoning ability is causing me to withhold acceptance of unconfirmed and inconclusive allegation.

Like I said, your confirmation bias is leading you to dismiss a reputable source.

Again, no. My skeptical bias is leading me to refuse to accept allegation and speculation. Appeals to authority notwithstanding.

There you go again, claiming I've said things I haven't said and failing to back it up with any quote of mine.

Kinda like all the times you've leveled accusations at me without quotes to back it up? This tit-for-tat nitpicking is unproductive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps you can show where such an implication is explicit - or even implicit.

I'm done with that particular argument. It doesn't go anywhere, I've failed to explain my reasoning in a way that others see, and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter anyway. But the highlighted bits made me giggle.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How in the world can you call the third largest state "extremely localized"?

Because geographically it is localized. Even in terms of culture and norms it is somewhat localized relative to the distribution of culture across geography.

Culture, norms, and beliefs tend to be geographically influenced - actual distance separation is a factor in the degree of cultural separation. That separation isn't really based on population density. Sure, a large number of people live in CA. But they don't represent a third of the variance in culture, outlook, and belief for the US.

China has nearly 20% of the population of the planet. If we're speaking of views and beliefs, policies and culture, we wouldn't say they represent the planet.

Influence and social impact aren't explicitly linked to population, and definitely aren't linked to population density.

Number of people isn't the only factor that comes into play in societies. Heck, almost a third of the population of the planet is Christian - should Christianity "win" because it's the most populous? Islam represents another 22% of the global population. Does that make them "right"?

The volume of people who believe a thing doesn't lend that thing more credence. The beliefs and culture of 4% of the geography of a nation is still only representative of 4% of the culture, even if it is 12% of the populace.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You seem to be saying that the "media" are one-sided with respect to their dirt slinging. Is that the case? If so, what evidence supports your claim?


I invite you to respond to my questions to Noztradamus.

It seems to be pretty well accepted that Fox routinely skews their reporting to a conservative slant - not a fair and balanced reporting of events. Similarly MSNBC routinely slants their reporting to a liberal view.

If you think that news outlets of today are regularly giving you a fair and balanced report of both sides of an issue, and are being fair and balanced in what they emphasize in their reporting... I don't really know what to say to you. It's been clearly biased for years now - it has progressively become more and more biased since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, which it was believed to have been under pressure to do from Ronald Reagan, then President of the United States, and in August of 2011, the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States

 

[Spindrift]

Because geographically it is localized. Even in terms of culture and norms it is somewhat localized relative to the distribution of culture across geography.

Culture, norms, and beliefs tend to be geographically influenced - actual distance separation is a factor in the degree of cultural separation. That separation isn't really based on population density. Sure, a large number of people live in CA. But they don't represent a third of the variance in culture, outlook, and belief for the US.

China has nearly 20% of the population of the planet. If we're speaking of views and beliefs, policies and culture, we wouldn't say they represent the planet.

Influence and social impact aren't explicitly linked to population, and definitely aren't linked to population density.

Number of people isn't the only factor that comes into play in societies. Heck, almost a third of the population of the planet is Christian - should Christianity "win" because it's the most populous? Islam represents another 22% of the global population. Does that make them "right"?

The volume of people who believe a thing doesn't lend that thing more credence. The beliefs and culture of 4% of the geography of a nation is still only representative of 4% of the culture, even if it is 12% of the populace.

Size of geography does not equal size of culture. Under that theory Alaska has twice as much culture as Texas?

The area of land people occupy who believe a thing doesn't lend that thing any credence.