• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, of course the size of geography doesn't equal size of culture. That sort of my point - the two things are relatively independent. Geography has an influence on culture - it affects how far a culture spreads and how much mutation occurs during that spread. Birds of a feather flock together is a pretty real thing.

People who live near each other tend to share the same cultural and social views. It's not a perfect correlation, but there's a strong tendency there. So geographical area has a role in where a particular culture exists, and the range of influence that the culture has.

The number of people in an area has an effect on the propagation of a culture, but doesn't by itself guarantee that the culture *will* spread. Just look at Europe - it's geographically a very dense, relatively small region of the globe, but the amount of cultural diversity is pretty astonishing. The cultural differences and distinctions between say France and Germany is pretty significant. even though they're relatively small in terms of physical area.

It is my opinion that neither volume of people nor geographic footprint by itself is sufficient to constitute an "average" in terms of cultural and social views. A combination of them is needed if one seeks to even try to find something "representative". Which is why the electoral college exists. I don't think it's an ideal solution - I much prefer the distributed electoral vote approach used by Nebraska and Maine (I think). But I do believe that the electoral approach is a better solution than a pure popular vote.
 
Armitage72 said:
...latest film in the "Purge" franchise in which rich people and a totalitarian US government arrange an annual mass killing of poor people.
Click to expand...

If it ever happens I expect to see posters here "explaining" why the mass killing off of poor people is a) not really bad, b) not really undemocratic and c) why it "doesn't really" violate the Constitution, either. :(
 
Emily's Cat said:
No, of course the size of geography doesn't equal size of culture.
Click to expand...
Now you're confusing me because that's exactly what you said.
Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to California? It is not culturally homogeneous. It could be broken into multiple states that are more culturally homogeneous and guess what? Hillary still gets 3 million more votes than Trump.
 
Spindrift said:
Size of geography does not equal size of culture. Under that theory Alaska has twice as much culture as Texas?
Click to expand...

It's 2.2 times the culture based on land mass but studies show that understates the cultural gap because it omits the three-mile coastal zones.
 
Armitage72 said:
The question is whether it's a Freudian Slip or just negligent planning and research.
You may as well run for President with the slogan "It Can't Happen Here."


For those who skipped the link, Trump's proposed 2020 campaign slogan, "Keep America Great", was already used as the slogan of the latest film in the "Purge" franchise, in which rich people and a totalitarian US government arrange an annual mass killing of poor people.
Click to expand...

No one will care, the film will be forgotten by 2020, I didn't even know it existed (or the first one for that matter.
 
I am soooo looking forward to the destruction of political correctness. The legacy media cartel on so-called "news" and information is over. Their ability to terrorize people into compliance with the specter of media assassination is attenuated by allowing more voices to be heard.

Look how they whined at opening up the press pool. Poor babies.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No one will care, the film will be forgotten by 2020, I didn't even know it existed (or the first one for that matter.
Click to expand...


The three films together have made $318 million on a total budget of $22 million, so people are apparently watching them. Not blockbusters by any stretch of the imagination, but successful.

You can never tell what media elements will catch in the public's imagination. Guy Fawkes masks?
 
Sherkeu said:
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".
Click to expand...
From your link:
The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.
Click to expand...
So what was leaked? That in the two page summary the intelligence agency briefed Trump on, they were concerned about the information in the dossier.

What did Trump say about the leaks?

Trump Again Blames Intel Community for Russia Dossier Leak

What you and others are claiming is that Trump's accusation about Intelligence leaks only amounts to this part:
The dossier of memos detailing how Russia allegedly sought to gain influence over Trump had been circulating for months among Washington lawmakers and media, but did not surface on a widespread scale until Tuesday night, when CNN broke the story that intelligence officials had provided Trump and President Barack Obama a summary of its contents. BuzzFeed News then published the memos.
Click to expand...
Trump is not verbalizing any such nuance despite Trump apologists claiming he is.
Trump has denied the dossier's assertions and accused the U.S. intelligence community of leaking the information to the press, prompting Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to issue a rare statement saying he does not believe that is the case.
Click to expand...



Sherkeu said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
But that is not what Trump has accused.

Maybe Trump was oblivious the the fact, "The dossier of memos detailing how Russia allegedly sought to gain influence over Trump had been circulating for months among Washington lawmakers and media."

It wasn't unknown to the public, nor was it not reported on until CNN reported on the 2 page memo giving the dossier more weight.

The Trouble With Publishing the Trump Dossier (a separate but related issue to Trump's accusing the wrong source of the dossier).
Smith [from Buzzfeed] alluded to the document’s wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either acquired or been offered the chance to view it—a group that includes CNN, Politico (whose Ken Vogel said he’d chased the story), and Lawfare. David Corn of Mother Jones also published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.
Click to expand...


This was Oct 21st, months before the CNN article: A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump
On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information."
Click to expand...

Both Reid and McCain forwarded the dossier that they received from the source, the private investigator, to Comey.


To summarize, what was leaked (according to CNN) was the briefing given Trump about the dossier accusations. What Trump claimed over and over was leaked, was the dossier itself.




Sherkeu said:
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.
Click to expand...
I repeat, that was not the 'leak' Trump claimed. Trump claimed the leak was of the dossier, not the 2 page summary or the briefing. The dossier was in the public sphere as far back as Oct.



Sherkeu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clapper begs to differ. People who have looked at the credibility of the private investigator beg to differ.

Whether Trump hired Russian prostitutes to have a piss on each other on a bed the Obama's slept in previously is a very minor part of the dossier's contents. Trump is sexually creepy, with or without a pissing fetish.

But what is a no brainer is that Putin would seek and very likely has leverage over Trump.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Did you read the entirety of my post? Because I spent some time clarifying that neither simple population nor simple geography is sufficient... but you seem to have missed that.
Click to expand...

You were clear enough. When a person doesn't have an argument, sabotage the discussion.
 
Emily's Cat said:
... I've failed to explain my reasoning in a way that others see, ...
Click to expand...
Don't confuse failing to accept your argument with a failure on your part to adequately explain it.

I know exactly what you are saying. You are discounting a reputable source with known Russian contacts, calling some evidence, no evidence because it is acknowledged as unconfirmed.

If you smell bacon but haven't seen it frying in the pan, is that some evidence of bacon, or no evidence because it was unconfirmed?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Did you read the entirety of my post? Because I spent some time clarifying that neither simple population nor simple geography is sufficient... but you seem to have missed that.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is you bought the propaganda that Clinton's 2.8 million vote lead only existed because... CA even after I showed you that was a meme contrived by a right wing propaganda source.

ORIGIN:On 18 December 2016, the Federalist Papers, a conservative clickbait web site, posted a story headlined "Hillary’s Popular Vote Win Came ENTIRELY from California"...
SG said:
It's true that if California's vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump's electoral vote victory "came entirely from Texas," since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states' vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn't undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can't sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn't also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.
Click to expand...
Specifically your's and their logic fails because:
But even if Clinton's 4.3 million vote victory over Trump in California provided her overall winning edge, it wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't also amassed enough votes all the other states to make that outcome possible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
newyorkguy said:
If it ever happens I expect to see posters here "explaining" why the mass killing off of poor people is a) not really bad, b) not really undemocratic and c) why it "doesn't really" violate the Constitution, either. :(
Click to expand...

No, they'll just say the mass killings of the poor is "Still better than Hillary!".
 
I think one mistake people are going to have to avoid making during this Administration is to make sure you only judge/analyze Trump's Presidency based on his actions, not his words. Anything Trump says could go completely either way along the True/False scale. He is known for saying one thing and doing a completely different one. So his statements about what he intends to do are completely useless, until he actually either does them, or does something else instead.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
I think one mistake people are going to have to avoid making during this Administration is to make sure you only judge/analyze Trump's Presidency based on his actions, not his words. Anything Trump says could go completely either way along the True/False scale. He is known for saying one thing and doing a completely different one. So his statements about what he intends to do are completely useless, until he actually either does them, or does something else instead.
Click to expand...

Well so far his Cabinet picks of the worst of the worst billionaires and other assorted scum speaks volumes.

And what Bob001 said.
 
So Trump is going to take a vacation first, after the inauguration. He promised no vacations when he was campaigning.
 
After his first post-election meeting with Obama, Trump said it was the first time he had ever met Obama, and praised him as "a good man." Apparently they've had several conversations since. I can't help but wonder, if Trump had met Obama in, say, 2008, when Obama was a candidate, or even at some point early in his first term, would Trump have gone down the "birther" road and ultimately run for President? In 2008 Trump was a New York businessman who had taken liberal positions and contributed to numerous political campaigns; it wouldn't have been at all unlikely for a presidential candidate to invite him to a fundraiser with a small group of other businessmen and feed their egos. We might be in a very different place today if Trump and Obama had crossed paths eight years ago. Discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom