The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

[Trebuchet]

Trump, QAnon, and Falun Gong.

Interesting.

 

[Horatius]

Stupid uncle would get an X or XX or even XXX would be my guess

"XXX is the sexiest mistake! #Winning! MAGA!"

 

[TragicMonkey]

Trump, QAnon, and Falun Gong.

Interesting.

"What are three things you wouldn't want with you when stranded on a desert island?"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

He HAS to be stepping into Libel range here, or at least getting really close. I would assume he has to provide evidence of these statements at some point in time.

Popehat has made the argument (backed up by examples of similar cases) that Trump says outrageous things so often that he would almost certainly win in a libel suit on the basis that nobody could take what he says seriously - and the fact that there are people who do wouldn't actually change that.

 

[Belz...]

Popehat has made the argument (backed up by examples of similar cases) that Trump says outrageous things so often that he would almost certainly win in a libel suit on the basis that nobody could take what he says seriously

Maybe he really is a genius!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What do you mean "how"? It's not the same thing, ergo it's different.

Scenario 1: "Hey, man. Wanna make some money? Come to this rally and I'll pay you 200 bucks!"
Scenario 2: "Don't forget to come to the auditorium tomorrow, rather than your cubicle. If you don't come, you won't get the overtime pay. You're still paid as per usual, however. It's not mandatory."

Those are two completely different things. I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Sorry, they aren't that different, much as I almost never agree with McHr.

'We'll pay you if you go'
'We'll dock your pay if you don't go'

So what they still get some pay.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, they aren't that different, much as I almost never agree with McHr.

'We'll pay you if you go'
'We'll dock your pay if you don't go'

Well, I'm sorry, but when I saw the link I expected to read that some of his recent rallies were composed in good part of paid participants. Instead we got something about some dick who's threatening to not pay his employers if they don't attend Trump's visit. One would be hilarious and sad, and the other is downright pissing me off.

So what they still get some pay.

I've never said anything of the sort.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Some context on the latest conspiracy theory trump has picked up on:

Oh, and as an added kicker:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...cation-losing-popular-vote-its-googles-fault/

There's a Senate Committee grilling a Google rep right now (CSPAN rerun) and it's obvious what they are trying to do, the Republicans on the committee anyway.

Ted Cruz is convinced because Google refused an ad by Marsha Blackburn that had bleeped profanity, Google is favoring the Democrats.

Cruz complained about this as if it were a valid representation:
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam

We all know how O'Keefe edits videos. The actual point was about preventing the Russian intervention in the 2016 election. Cruz was acting as if it was a Google plot against Trump.

 

[Belz...]

Cruz was acting as if it was a Google plot against Trump.

He should know all about plots. After all, his dad killed JFK.

 

[theprestige]

Well, I meant it was weird because I haven't seen that happen, but perhaps I just haven't noticed or something.

But I'd say it's also weird because were I a business owner, I would want reviews from those who visited my business and not from those who didn't I don't think I'd like to increase the former by also increasing the latter. Again, maybe lots of businesses do this sort of thing. I just haven't heard of it.

Well, it depends a little bit what Craig4 is actually talking about. At first I thought he meant literally a customer satisfaction survey commissioned by the property, triggered by him being close to the property as registered by GPS on his phone.

But the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably those Google maps-related "tell us about your visit to X", which are triggered the same way via GPS proximity, but have nothing to do with the business owner.

Those are more about Google building a pattern of inferences which it can then provide to other users looking at that part of the map. It'll get a lot of false positives, but Google is clearly not concerned about having a fuzzy border around the "facts" of public opinion on its maps.

But even if it were an actual customer survey commissioned by the property, I think it's still probably better to cast a wide net. The majority of people nearby in GPS are probably going to actually be vistiting the place. The majority of people just passing by are probably going to ignore the survey prompt. A decent market research firm should be able to figure out the error bars and pitch a worthwhile product back to the client based on soliciting surveys in this way.

Larger error bars, but extremely cheap to do and far less intrusive, compared to human survey-takers stationed at the venue itself. You could even solicit surveys through a few different methods. Humans on premise to get highly relevant surveys at relatively high cost. And then phone-prompted surveys at a much lower cost. You could even compare phone surveys to on-prem surveys, and use the variances to spot fake phone surveys from drive-bys.

Or just discard the spittle-flecked rants about OMB.

 

[Ladewig]

Why are we talking about customer surveys in a Trump thread?

Why are we arguing about paying vs not paying employees in a Trump thread?

 

[Belz...]

Why are we talking about customer surveys in a Trump thread?

Why are we arguing about paying vs not paying employees in a Trump thread?

Well the latter's about a Trump appearance that he, of course, treated as a rally.

 

[plague311]

Popehat has made the argument (backed up by examples of similar cases) that Trump says outrageous things so often that he would almost certainly win in a libel suit on the basis that nobody could take what he says seriously - and the fact that there are people who do wouldn't actually change that.

I remember him addressing it a few times, but there has to be a line. You can't let some stupid ******* talk all the **** he wants simply because he's a **** talking *******.

I know what Popehat was saying, and to some degree I agree with it, but enough has to be enough. He's blatantly attributing views to another person without any evidence that the person holds said views.

Why are we talking about customer surveys in a Trump thread?

Hell if I know. I'm as confused as you are.

Why are we arguing about paying vs not paying employees in a Trump thread?

That I can easily answer. The paying vs. not paying is directly related to Trump holding a rally that employees were properly paid to go to. It can't get much more related to Trump than literally being about the attendance of a rally.

I'm glad I could help!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why are we arguing about paying vs not paying employees in a Trump thread?

Yea it is only contractors who don't get paid in a Trump thread. Also cities like El Paso. And...


Ok not paying people is always relevant in a Trump thread.

 

[phiwum]

"It doesn't matter if he died from a heart attack or by gunshot, your honor. One way or another he's dead. It makes no difference!"

Sorry, that the end result is that Trump's crowd numbers are inflated doesn't change the fact that the dynamic is very different. I don't see why that's controversial.

I think that Belz's comment that this is different than a rent-a-crowd should be uncontroversial. It's similar in some ways, but it's different in that these folk would be giving up their usual pay if they don't attend, rather than getting bonus pay for attending.

Some have said it's worse than rent-a-crowd. Belz hasn't given his opinion on whether it's better or worse, far as I can recall. I think there's some merit to the claim that it's worse. One's employer is effectively pressuring the person to attend what was obviously a political event (though perhaps that's not what was originally promised, I don't know).

I don't see why everyone is hollering at Belz for pointing out the differences. There are differences as well as similarities.

 

[plague311]

I think that Belz's comment that this is different than a rent-a-crowd should be uncontroversial. It's similar in some ways, but it's different in that these folk would be giving up their usual pay if they don't attend, rather than getting bonus pay for attending.

Some have said it's worse than rent-a-crowd. Belz hasn't given his opinion on whether it's better or worse, far as I can recall. I think there's some merit to the claim that it's worse. One's employer is effectively pressuring the person to attend what was obviously a political event (though perhaps that's not what was originally promised, I don't know).

I don't see why everyone is hollering at Belz for pointing out the differences. There are differences as well as similarities.

My best guess is it's a distinction that literally makes no difference.

It boils down to: If you went to the rally would you get more money than if you didn't go to the rally?

I get that we love to split hairs here and nitpick down to the finest of details, but the distinction here makes absolutely no difference at all. A company\contractor told its employees they would get more money (No matter how you shake it out) if they went to the rally. A company\contractor told their employees that they would receive less money if they did not attend the rally. Whether it's regular pay, vacation pay, etc. it really doesn't matter, unless you really feel the need to get that granular. Either way. Going = more, not going = less.

Both of those are established, and undeniable facts.

Compare that to a criminal case where it boils down to someone having a heart attack or a being ******* murdered. I mean, seriously. To you that's an apt analogy? They are completely and entirely different situations that would have drastically different outcomes for the scenario. Does the Trump situation have that? No, it's either more money or less money.

 

[Ladewig]

That I can easily answer. The paying vs. not paying is directly related to Trump holding a rally that employees were properly paid to go to. It can't get much more related to Trump than literally being about the attendance of a rally.

I'm glad I could help!

It can’t?

The money didn’t come out of President Trump’s pocket, did it?
President Trump didn’t decide that these people should be plaplaced in this position, did he?

I have a hard time placing this in top 300 most discussion-worthy comments and actions from DJT.

 

[Belz...]

Compare that to a criminal case where it boils down to someone having a heart attack or a being ******* murdered. I mean, seriously. To you that's an apt analogy? They are completely and entirely different situations that would have drastically different outcomes for the scenario.

They're not entirely different. In both cases someone died.

That was the point I was trying to make. Sure, something important is the same between the two scenarios. But the meat of what's going on, which I would consider to be more important both in the analogy and in real life, is quite different. Seriously, I don't know why not everyone sees this, especially since I've explained it in every way I could think of.

But I'll repeat: if McHrozni says "Trump (or his rich backers) are paying people to attend his rallies." I don't expect it to mean "factory workers are forced to attend Trump's speech during work hours lest they are denied their pay." It's misleading at best.

 

[plague311]

That was the point I was trying to make. Sure, something important is the same between the two scenarios. But the meat of what's going on, which I would consider to be more important both in the analogy and in real life, is quite different. Seriously, I don't know why not everyone sees this, especially since I've explained it in every way I could think of.

Right, but just because you explain something every way you can think of doesn't mean that other people will agree with your explanation or your viewpoint. It doesn't mean you're right.

But I'll repeat: if McHrozni says "Trump (or his rich backers) are paying people to attend his rallies." I don't expect it to mean "factory workers are forced to attend Trump's speech during work hours lest they are denied their pay." It's misleading at best.

Ok, did he say that? I haven't seen anyone here claim that Trump was paying them, or even imply it. I might have missed some ****.

 

[dudalb]

He HAS to be stepping into Libel range here, or at least getting really close. I would assume he has to provide evidence of these statements at some point in time.

Legally, no, he doesn't.
If you are a public figure in the US, and Tlaib is certainly that, Libel is almost impossible to prove.
And what Trump said about Tlaib is no worse then what a lot of people are saying about Trump.
They don't have to legally produce Proof, and neither does Donny.
Still INHO the POTUS should simply not stoop to that level.