• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
Infanteer said:
Great article at the BBC about the current President.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

This bit pretty much sums the to-and-fro of this thread up.

The article gives him perhaps excessively early plaudits on NAFTA. He hasn't gotten it through Congress yet and it's very possible he may not. He negotiated a draft deal, but that's not the same as ratification and legislative enablement. He is one of the co-equal branches of government. He does not govern by diktat; he has to get his major policy wishes through the two houses of Congress, who are the elected representatives of the people. If he can pull that off, *then* he deserves credit for a major trade deal. Concurrently, he pulled the US out of at least one other major trade bloc expecting that deal to necessarily then die, but instead the rest of us the countries involved sidestepped him and carried on... Not a particularly astute move.

Other promises have very clearly *not* been kept. "We're gonna built a wall and Mexico will pay for it"... Well, no, no they won't. Nor, apparently, will Congress, so you get to own a prolonged shutdown that mere weeks ago you boasted you would be proud of. He promised to end Birthright Citizenship, one of his more constitutionally concerning promises. That has not progress and can safely be considered 'broken' with the Democrats in control of the House. He promised massive infrastructure investment that has not happened. He promised to cancel all federal funding for Sanctuary Cities- broken. A ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections- No move. Renegotiating the Iran deal - Nada. Mass deportation of Syrian refugees- Broken. Mandatory minimum sentences for people caught entering the US illegally- broken (utterly impractical anyway). Releasing his tax returns- broken, he's even walked back on the 'after the audit' promise. Fortunately some of his dumber promises are 'broken' too- meddling with vaccine schedules to avoid autism, eliminating the federal debt in eight years, a wholesale ban on Muslims entering the US... He has promised a lot of stuff, some of it pretty eyebrow raising.

The BBC is also greatly underselling just how blatantly and frequently he outright lies or fabricates stuff. Not slight exaggerations, but really stupidly blatant stuff. That's been covered at length here so I won't waste anyone's time with yet more specific examples, but the 'so what?' is it makes him so damned unreliable and unpredictable for political and diplomatic allies. Add that to his penchant for doing whatever the hell he wants, and he has problems. More than ever right now he needs to be able to be perceived by his party's Senate as someone who can be worked with... He's not doing a particularly good job of that, and his intransigence is only going to increasingly cause issues for Republican senators who may be politically vulnerable in 2020. The longer this shutdown drags on, the more he risks facing his own senate sending playing 'legislative chicken' and putting the ball in his court to actually veto appropriations bills that a *lot* of Americans are dependent upon and that the entirety of congress may get to the point of passing out of frustration. Worst case for him would be to continue the tantrum and eventually face a veto override. That can no longer be discounted as a possibility.

Politically he's pretty much 'all in' on that damned wall. And the only real 'win' for him is a complete win. Anything less than what he has repeatedly demanded at this point and he will suffer for it. He's pushed this too long and too far for a subsequent compromise to win him any points with anyone.

Another missed federal paycheck in a week... Pressure will amp up, and he's going to be seeing more and more pushback soon. He's facing legal action for trying to order back to work employees who cannot possibly fall under the provisions allowing for unpaid work to protect live and property, because the disruptions are starting to bite. He will probably lose at least some of those legal actions- and that's only going to get worse and some problems take days or weeks to manifest as work doesn't get done.

For better or worse he said in no uncertain terms that he owns this shutdown and is proud of it. He doesn't get to walk it back, not now. How he lies in this bed he made will be interesting.
 
It's ironic that in his tit for tat fight with Pelosi, that by cancelling her 7 day trip he is actually keeping her in DC to casual him more headaches.

Given Cohen's latest reveals a 7 day break from her would have been better lol.
 
Brihard said:
For better or worse he said in no uncertain terms that he owns this shutdown and is proud of it. He doesn't get to walk it back, not now. How he lies in this bed he made will be interesting.

Funniest thing I've heard about the shutdown from US political satirists, and leaving all politics aside, is this:

"President Trump has painted himself into a corner, which is a pretty amazing achievement for someone who works in an office that is oval!".

;D
 
Normally, I would let this be. However, one individual, journeyman, seemingly, wont rest until I've replied to PPCLI Guy. jm is on my Ignore List, as I am on his. I have others on the list also. I don’t typically read or respond to people on my Ignore list. I saw jm's response, about me, in a quote. That’s how it was noticed. However, it must be really important to him, because he typically, dismisses or ridicules just about everything I write. I’ll do it this once then.

So the original request, to my statement that Trump has accomplished a number of good things, to which:

PPCLI Guy said:
In the interest of fairnes, I simply ask for a shortlist of his accomplishments.
Not answered because it was not seen, due to the Ignore List format.

Journeyman said:
I mean, I can certainly understand why Trump supporters need two standards of 'discussion,'  where only one side is expected to read widely, assess, and justify, yet something like this (the question raised by PPCLI Guy) goes unanswered without an eyebrow raised. :crickets:

I’m at a loss as to what is so critical and earth shattering for me failing to answer a question? Like I say, the individual, implying I should do so, does not take me seriously anyway. So what is the point? He ignores questions regularly.

Anyway, for PPCLI Guy, in answer to his question, a direction pointer. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-the-two-years-since-his-historic-2016-election-win/

These next words might seem familiar to some. The tense has been changed, as well as some sources. But taken as a whole, they reflect what journeyman has written himself, when he was queried for answers and research, by others. Fits my situation for a response back to him, I think. No sense me wordsmithing anything, when such great pearls of wisdom already exist.

‘but for full disclosure, this is just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else – but, here it is, a direction pointer for anyone who cares to read for themselves. 

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or an
*Obama, CNN or BuzzFeed*.

*- added by me

Apologies to PPCLI Guy for missing your question. Shit happens.

Tanks – to journeyman, for providing me a stock answer next time you need something.
I think it works pretty good.

If anyone would like to copy it and use it when being badgered for an answer, or whatever you think it fits, feel free to use it.

Please understand, if I have you on ignore, I likely won't be responding to you. It is a set feature on this forum and is being used for exactly what it was intended for, by the owner. That doesn't mean I won't see what you've written, but it's a mighty good guess I won't.

Cheers
 
Fishbone Jones said:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/here-it-is-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-the-two-years-since-his-historic-2016-election-win/

I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,

The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[2][3] news and opinion website. It has been described as a fake news website.[4]

False stories and conspiracy theories

The Gateway Pundit is known as a source of viral falsehoods and hoaxes.[14][15][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit#False_stories_and_conspiracy_theories

I read the BBC article Infanteer posted,

Infanteer said:
Great article at the BBC about the current President.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46895634

Last year, a poll of nearly 200 political science scholars, which has routinely placed Republicans higher than Democrats, ranked him 44th out of the 44 men who have occupied the post (for those wondering why Trump is the 45th president, Grover Cleveland served twice).

Though the president has likened himself to Abraham Lincoln, who posterity has deemed to be greatest of all presidents, this survey judged him to be the worst of the worst. Even the conservative scholars, who identified themselves as Republicans, placed him 40th.

It's up to the American voters to decide,

mariomike said:
Democrats got 60,727,598 votes, and the Republicans got 50,983,895 votes ( 1 ), in the election two months ago,

Source:

( 1 ) Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true





 
mariomike said:
I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

just in case anyone was wondering...

No wonder Trump has a base, judging by the number of people that read that...stuff.
 
mariomike said:
I don't read that website. But, I have read of it,

I read the BBC article Infanteer posted,

It's up to the American voters to decide,

"It's up to the American voters to decide"

I agree with you 100%. The link wasn't put there for your approval. It, was put there in response to someone's question.

As quite clearly stated, it, was put there as a starting point for you to follow if you really cared to. A starting point, not research.

I don't care if you agree with it, or you think something you read is more agreeable to your stance, or easier to agree with someone else's research instead of your own.

I reread your post, a couple of times. I didn't see a discussion worth pursuing or a salient point in there. Was there one? We're seldom on the same page, so perhaps Im missing something. Or were you just being contrary because it's me?  Doesn't matter. It wasnt even an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions anyway. Right?

Wow, I didn't think I'd have to refer back to journeymans (edited by me) prose so quickly.

but for full disclosure, this is just a quick sample off of the top of my head;  I had other things to do so I didn't do even the basic research for you or anyone else – but, here it is, a direction pointer for anyone who cares to read for themselves.

At the end of the day, anyone who expects to be spoon-fed their 'facts' deserves whatever they end up swallowing ... whether it comes from a Clinton or an *Obama, CNN or BuzzFeed*.’[
/b]

Remius said:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-gateway-pundit/

just in case anyone was wondering...

No wonder Trump has a base, judging by the number of people that read that...stuff.

Pretty ditto to my above.response.

I was asked to point out some good stuff. I gave you the first thing that popped up in my search, to point you in direction of the conversation.
Not to do your research, provide you talking points, nor do I even have to condider it part of my overall stance. It's what it was and nothing more.

 
Fishbone Jones said:
I was asked to point out some good stuff. I gave you the first thing that popped up in my search, to point you in direction of the conversation.
Not to do your research, provide you talking points, nor do I even have to condider it part of my overall stance. It's what it was and nothing more.

I always research.  Having facts and sources helps cement your argument. Because the internet isn't always the truth. In truth I wasn't responding to you.  I was responding to mariomike and people here at large about the source used.  In my opinion a very bad source to use to support any argument.  I don't really care why you provided it.  But I care if the source is bad and posted why it is bad.  A few posts before I listed some of the good things I think Trump has done but my info came from more reputable sources (again mileage may vary on what people think is a reputable source.)

Like anti-vaccers providing sources from Jenny Mccarthy on the science of vaccines.  Just because it might be the first thing that pops up in a search does not make it right or even real.  You get what you pay for but some of us will check the facts.  Facts matter.

 
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.

I didn't say that.  Feel free to dispute my sources or not.  I disputed yours with a info as to why it isn't reputable.  I didn't just brush it off.  I read the BBC article that Infanteer posted.  A good source and a good article in my opinion.  It does run counter to what I might think but it is well written with good arguments. 

You said that you do not even consider it as part of your overall stance.  not sure why it would upset you then that someone would check the facts.  For someone who laments the MSM for not properly fact checking, you sure do get upset when people here try to. 
 
A shopping list of things that have been done doesn't leave much room to worry about bias.  The only real bias is the listing of "accomplishments" that are largely outside the control of the president (ie. they are either "coincidences" or only very lightly affected by executive decisions) and you should be able to decide that for yourself without wasting bandwidth in fact-check and credibility wars.

This past weekend showed that many of the "non-questionable" sources have severe problems with accuracy and credibility too.  You have to read something to judge it, and you have to read widely enough to confirm whether it is the marginal or mainstream media that have it right.

Even the most mainstream sources are subject to my 1/3 rule: 1/3 of any given article will be misleading or flat-out wrong.  (I should probably update that to a 1/2 rule, because the standards of today's journalists are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.)
 
Brad Sallows said:
A shopping list of things that have been done doesn't leave much room to worry about bias.  The only real bias is the listing of "accomplishments" that are largely outside the control of the president (ie. they are either "coincidences" or only very lightly affected by executive decisions) and you should be able to decide that for yourself without wasting bandwidth in fact-check and credibility wars.

This past weekend showed that many of the "non-questionable" sources have severe problems with accuracy and credibility too.  You have to read something to judge it, and you have to read widely enough to confirm whether it is the marginal or mainstream media that have it right.

Even the most mainstream sources are subject to my 1/3 rule: 1/3 of any given article will be misleading or flat-out wrong.  (I should probably update that to a 1/2 rule, because the standards of today's journalists are much weaker than they were 20 years ago.)

Absolutely which is why I try to get various sources to form an opinion.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
So, facts from your sources, following your stance are ok, but anything from anyone else, not in agreement, not so much. Got it.

Why change the discussion then? This status quo follows every political thread on this forum.

Facts ought not to be dependent on source.  They are what they are - or at least they used to be.
 
Remius said:
I didn't say that.  Feel free to dispute my sources or not.  I disputed yours with a info as to why it isn't reputable.  I didn't just brush it off.  I read the BBC article that Infanteer posted.  A good source and a good article in my opinion.  It does run counter to what I might think but it is well written with good arguments. 

You said that you do not even consider it as part of your overall stance.  not sure why it would upset you then that someone would check the facts.  For someone who laments the MSM for not properly fact checking, you sure do get upset when people here try to.

You seem confused as to my stance. I'm far from upset. I'm just realistic. My answer to the original question was not meant as research. I stated that. jm appeared to have desperate need for an answer, so I provided one. I really wasn't interested in answering nor was I interested in spending time researching for someone else. They got an answer. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it, it's pedigree or it's subject matter. Like I said, it is what it is. Simply, anyone asking the initial question, is just as capable of doing their own 15 second search. When you're too lazy to search yourself, don't ask someone to do it for you. If you do, don't be a putz and question the answers you get back. Go ahead and disagree, but go figure it out for yourself. If the question is only worth a penny, I don't spend a dollar answering it.  Caveat emptor, that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying. You get what you pay for. You don't hand a bucket of paint to a stranger off the internet, ask them to paint your house for nothing, then complain about the result.

In the long run, no one is entitled to demand an answer from anyone here. If you get one, it's because someone decided to answer you. Not because they have to.

This board has an Ignore List function. It was installed and the parameters set by the owner of this private site. If a member wishes to utilize it, that is their decision. They are under no obligation to even acknowledge the people on their list. So if you don't get an answer, to a question you asked, perhaps no is really interested or you're on someone's list.

Pretty simple huh? Hope that helps explain it all for a final time and the thread can move on.

Cheers
 
PPCLI Guy said:
Facts ought not to be dependent on source.  They are what they are - or at least they used to be.

I agree. But short of dragging Pelosi or Trump in here to answer for themselves, we are dependent on what we are being told. Now something like the economy, if you have the financial background to understand it, has lots of hard fact not put into the MSM reporting. An economist would be able to extrapolate from government reports, banks, etc on which to base their theories. Most though don't have that level of understanding. They are left with the MSM, in large part, to draw their conclusions. The MSM, here and in the US are pretty hard wired in their stances and you'd be hard pressed to find one reporting from the point of fact and not their political affiliation. At east in my experience

Those MSM outlets, for better or worse, have aligned themselves and their editorial direction with one party or another. Few outlets, worldwide, treat politics purely on fact and most cater to the lowest common denominator. Similar to the reporting on the Covington student controversy. Initial reports, purposely selected clips and soundbites used to sensationalize the story, making the students seem like white supremacists. The actual, over an hour long video with sound, show something quite the opposite. Yet there are still outlets running the original, false story. There are very few, middle of the road, news on fact not fantasy outlets out there. Most fall one side or the other, quite obviously. The weirder the name, Brietbart, Mother Jones or BuzzFeed for example, the further out on the wings they seem to get. However, you can't discount them completely. The get it right once in awhile.

Perhaps it's time to draw up a list of what is acceptable to members as fact based news outlets. I would suspect when talking of Canada or the States, we'll need to look offshore for unbiased reporting.

Why is that?
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Perhaps it's time to draw up a list of what is acceptable to members as fact based news outlets. I would suspect when talking of Canada or the States, we'll need to look offshore for unbiased reporting.

Why is that?

You may find this site/chart of interest for some insight into the respective quality and bias of quite a variety of outlets. They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com
 
[quote author=Brihard] They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com
[/quote]

It looks like they've overlooked updating CNN's position for the last few years  ;D
 
Saw this in today's news,

Politico

Trump says he told Sarah Sanders 'not to bother' with press briefings.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/22/trump-press-briefings-1117946
 
Brihard said:
You may find this site/chart of interest for some insight into the respective quality and bias of quite a variety of outlets. They’ve been tweaking and revising this for a few years now.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com

Tanks Bri. I'll definitely check it out.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
You seem confused as to my stance. I'm far from upset. I'm just realistic. My answer to the original question was not meant as research. I stated that. jm appeared to have desperate need for an answer, so I provided one. I really wasn't interested in answering nor was I interested in spending time researching for someone else. They got an answer. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it, it's pedigree or it's subject matter. Like I said, it is what it is. Simply, anyone asking the initial question, is just as capable of doing their own 15 second search. When you're too lazy to search yourself, don't ask someone to do it for you. If you do, don't be a putz and question the answers you get back. Go ahead and disagree, but go figure it out for yourself. If the question is only worth a penny, I don't spend a dollar answering it.  Caveat emptor, that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying. You get what you pay for. You don't hand a bucket of paint to a stranger off the internet, ask them to paint your house for nothing, then complain about the result.

In the long run, no one is entitled to demand an answer from anyone here. If you get one, it's because someone decided to answer you. Not because they have to.

This board has an Ignore List function. It was installed and the parameters set by the owner of this private site. If a member wishes to utilize it, that is their decision. They are under no obligation to even acknowledge the people on their list. So if you don't get an answer, to a question you asked, perhaps no is really interested or you're on someone's list.

Pretty simple huh? Hope that helps explain it all for a final time and the thread can move on.

Cheers

Fair enough and point taken.  I won’t derail any longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top