America - The Official Thread

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Hell has come to Paradise. It would be poor time for the Big One to strike on the San Andreas fault. On the other hand, I can see boom times ahead for the building trades. I wonder how the insurance industry is doing?

The building trades are booming so hard, already, that it's impossible to actually find contractors. It's likely that we'll need to bring contractors in from out of state just to meet the demand. Regardless, it will take a long time to rebuild this little town. The view right now from my office looks like a scene from Bladerunner 2049. The sun is deep red and the sky is this foul yellow brown.

I wish people would start choosing concrete and steel for building in the forest. While it may not prevent the fire from destroying the house, it could easily not provide more fuel.

EDIT: The entire city of Malibu has been ordered to evacuate, due to the woolsey fire. Not sure how many people have driven through Malibu, but evacuating 75,000 out of there is not going to be easy. There are 2 ways out (that don't involve driving towards the fire) and they both involve highway 1, which gets easily overwhelmed.

 

[Dotini]

EDIT: The entire city of Malibu has been ordered to evacuate, due to the woolsey fire. Not sure how many people have driven through Malibu, but evacuating 75,000 out of there is not going to be easy. There are 2 ways out (that don't involve driving towards the fire) and they both involve highway 1, which gets easily overwhelmed.

Yikes! I expect that could take at least a full day. Not everybody is going to have transportation already arranged, and some don't get the word.

 

[PocketZeven]

How is this ok to come from the whitehouse?



Tweeting a doctored video as proof that a cnn reporter “assaulted” an intern. The official resin for him being banned from the whitehouse is for assault. Even if I try to look from the point of view from the poor intern. This is not assault.

Conway even stated publicly that the cnn reporter needed to apologize. Suggesting he did not apologize. However in the footage you clearly see him immediately apologize for the accidental contact.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pardon_me

 

[Sanji Himura]

How is this ok to come from the whitehouse?



Tweeting a doctored video as proof that a cnn reporter “assaulted” an intern. The official resin for him being banned from the whitehouse is for assault. Even if I try to look from the point of view from the poor intern. This is not assault.

Conway even stated publicly that the cnn reporter needed to apologize. Suggesting he did not apologize. However in the footage you clearly see him immediately apologize for the accidental contact.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/pardon_me

Actually, that was a .gif of the alleged assault. Frames WILL be lost in the transition between the RAW format and the end result. Sorry, but that is the way encoding works. Ask any technophile if you don't believe me.

I will, however, give the CNN reporter a benefit of the doubt here. He did apologize, fair enough, but the end result of all of this ISN'T that CNN is banned from the Press Pool, the way that FOX was treated during the Obama Administration. It is that particular reporter that is banned from the White House. CNN is free to send another reporter to be a part of the Press Pool as long as they behaved themselves.

 

[PocketZeven]

Robert Reich about trumps economy:

 

[Northstar]

Robert Reich about trumps economy:

I have a hard time taking him seriously considering his minimal use of actual numbers and obvious bias. Not to mention videos like this that make him seem about as credible as Rush Limbaugh.

 

[McLaren]

Robert Reich is about as worth listening to as Sean Hannity. His entire political commentary revolves around bagging Trump and Republicans for anything & everything.

And since you've been so quick to point out about Trump's dishonest tweets, here's Robert misconstruing a statistic for his narrative.

My friends, this is a dark hour. Intolerance, cruelty, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and environmental destruction have been let loose across the land. But, remember, only 27 percent of Americans are Republican, and the vast majority of Americans disapprove of Trump.

And only 31% are Democrats. Nearly the majority are Independents.

 

[PocketZeven]

Actually, that was a .gif of the alleged assault. Frames WILL be lost in the transition between the RAW format and the end result. Sorry, but that is the way encoding works. Ask any technophile if you don't believe me.

I will, however, give the CNN reporter a benefit of the doubt here. He did apologize, fair enough, but the end result of all of this ISN'T that CNN is banned from the Press Pool, the way that FOX was treated during the Obama Administration. It is that particular reporter that is banned from the White House. CNN is free to send another reporter to be a part of the Press Pool as long as they behaved themselves.

That Gif was extremely misleading. Obama isn’t president anymore. So why bring it up? Snubbing isn’t the same as banning.

It’s about banning a reporter for the wrong reasons. The official statement is he “placed his hands” on the intern. That is just misleading.

 

[TexRex]

Obama isn’t president anymore. So why bring it up?

Simples:

Whataboutism (also known as Whataboutery) is a form of defensive propaganda used to counter criticism (usually from "the West", and usually on blatant human rights abuses) with a "What about...?"—question vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue. It is a specialized red herring version of the tu quoque fallacy, sometimes implementing the balance fallacy as well. An old favorite of the Soviet Union, the strategy was used in the form of "And at your place, they hang black people". In recent years, whataboutism made a comeback in Vladimir Putin's Russia, and has also seen a rise in usage by Donald Trump and his support base.

Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another. It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.

 

[PocketZeven]

Simples:

Actually, that was a .gif of the alleged assault. Frames WILL be lost in the transition between the RAW format and the end result. Sorry, but that is the way encoding works. Ask any technophile if you don't believe me.

I will, however, give the CNN reporter a benefit of the doubt here. He did apologize, fair enough, but the end result of all of this ISN'T that CNN is banned from the Press Pool, the way that FOX was treated during the Obama Administration. It is that particular reporter that is banned from the White House. CNN is free to send another reporter to be a part of the Press Pool as long as they behaved themselves.

I do notice it is more frequently used by people trying to defend Trump rhetoric.

In the example used above:

fact: the Whitehouse bans CNN longstanding reporter (since 1996 i believe) for a false accusation of assault or in the correct words "putting hands on intern".

Counter: What about an accusation that FOX was banned from the presspool by the Obama administration.

My problem with this:
1. I found no evidence of this ban
2. Fox had been snubbed, which is not the same as accusing a member of the press of assault/impropiate contact, that clearly is a misleading exaggeration
3. These 2 cases have no relevance to eachother.
4. I am not a democrat, but a european moderate rightwinger. So why bring up the obama administration?

If a former boss steals money from someones paycheck at mcdonalds in NY. Does it give the justify someone else to steal money from his boss in washington at mcdonalds? Where is the logic?

I have a hard time taking him seriously considering his minimal use of actual numbers and obvious bias. Not to mention videos like this that make him seem about as credible as Rush Limbaugh.

Thanks for that video. Robert Reich is quite credible, but admittedly biased. He served under multiple presidents. He does base his reasoning on facts and should be factcheckable.

http://robertreich.org/post/177953319405

edit: added comment @Northstar

 

[Northstar]

Thanks for that video. Robert Reich is quite credible, but admittedly biased. He served under multiple presidents. He does base his reasoning on facts and should be factcheckable.

http://robertreich.org/post/177953319405

edit: added comment @Northstar

All that link shows is Trump has an issue with overstating things to stroke his ego. There doesn't seem to be anything warranting the "everybody panic!" narrative he seems to be pushing.

1. “Best job growth ever.” Wrong. Job growth has actually slowed. In the last 19 months of the Obama administration the economy created 3.96 million jobs. In the first 19 months of Trump’s, 3.58 million.

All this proves is Trump just says whatever will work with his ego, 3.58 million new jobs is still alot.

2. “Lowest unemployment rate ever.” Rubbish. The unemployment rate is now down to 3.9 percent. That’s good. But it doesn’t measure how many people are still too discouraged to look for work or are working part time who’d rather be working full time. The labor participation rate (percent of prime working age work who actually have jobs) has been stuck at 88.9 percent for over a year.

No clue where he got that number, but from what I could find, that stat has been pretty much the same since 2013.

And the current 3.9 percent rate is hardly better than ever in history. It was 3.4 percent in 1968 under Johnson, and below 3.9 percent for much of 1951, 1952, and 1953, under Eisenhower.

3. “Fastest economic growth in history.” Wrong again. The economy is now growing at annualized rate of 4.2 percent (that’s for the 2nd quarter). That’s not as good as the 5.1 percent and 4.9 percent achieved in 2 quarters in 2014, or the 4.7 percent in one quarter in 2011. During the Clinton years of 1997-1999, it grew by over 4.5 percent annually. Under Reagan, the recovery averaged 4.4 percent a year. Under Eisenhower, even faster.

What was that about "whataboutism"?

Again, he seems like a liberal version of Rush.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I do notice it is more frequently used by people trying to defend Trump rhetoric.

In the example used above:

fact: the Whitehouse bans CNN longstanding reporter (since 1996 i believe) for a false accusation of assault or in the correct words "putting hands on intern".

Counter: What about an accusation that FOX was banned from the presspool by the Obama administration.

My problem with this:
1. I found no evidence of this ban
2. Fox had been snubbed, which is not the same as accusing a member of the press of assault/impropiate contact, that clearly is a misleading exaggeration
3. These 2 cases have no relevance to eachother.
4. I am not a democrat, but a european moderate rightwinger. So why bring up the obama administration?

If a former boss steals money from someones paycheck at mcdonalds in NY. Does it give the justify someone else to steal money from his boss in washington at mcdonalds? Where is the logic?



Thanks for that video. Robert Reich is quite credible, but admittedly biased. He served under multiple presidents. He does base his reasoning on facts and should be factcheckable.

http://robertreich.org/post/177953319405

edit: added comment @Northstar

So basically, stop talking about anything that happened before yesterday to provide historical perspective while I post up links that use historical statistics dating back to the 1960's to prove my case.👍👍

 

[TexRex]

historical perspective

 

[Johnnypenso]

That Gif was extremely misleading. Obama isn’t president anymore. So why bring it up? Snubbing isn’t the same as banning.

It’s about banning a reporter for the wrong reasons. The official statement is he “placed his hands” on the intern. That is just misleading.

Do you think his behaviour is acceptable? Should we allow all reporters to simply push the hand away of the intern reaching for the mic if they want to continue to ask questions? Who runs the press conference, the White House or the press core?

 

[PocketZeven]

So basically, stop talking about anything that happened before yesterday to provide historical perspective while I post up links that use historical statistics dating back to the 1960's to prove my case.👍👍

When there is data that is relevant to the post, then yes. What he posted was irrelevant.

Do you think his behaviour is acceptable? Should we allow all reporters to simply push the hand away of the intern reaching for the mic if they want to continue to ask questions? Who runs the press conference, the White House or the press core?

Did you see the video in full context? His eyes were focused on trump. And immediately apologised. No one in the room and even trump himself didnt even notice it or found it out of order. Please watch the whole footage with sound. No one was speaking about it until Sarah Sanders posted that inaccurate GIF.

 

[TexRex]

Did you see the video in full context?

Just look at the way his hand came down on her arm; that was clearly a karate chop.[/sarcasm]



There's surely reasonable cause to revoke Acosta's pass based on his actual actions, though. Right? He got to have his question dodged just like the individual before him and the next member of the WH press corps deserves the same opportunity, but he opted to be inconsiderate and continue his line of questioning. That ought to be justification enough to have him removed without resorting to spin and false narratives.

What struck me during the exchange between Acosta and Trump was the latter's "They weren't actors. They weren't actors. Do you think they were actors?" bit. Because apparently that's the only basis on which one can question material presented as corresponding to a narrative. It seems to me there's another group that likes to do that, though; your right-wing conspiracy theorists, such as those referring to victims and family members of victims at school shootings as "crisis actors". Resorting to such an apparent implication so quickly makes it seem as though he's been taking in heaps of that garbage.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Blade Runner or Malibu in 2018?

 

[Liquid]

If Acosta had "grabbed" that woman somewhere more intimate, the President would have loved it.

 

[Betty blue]

The reporter shouldn't have resisted that the mike was being taken away from him at all. He has given his fair time to ask his questions, he was very rude and chaotic. The president asked him more than once to put down the mike and he kept ignoring him which was very disrespectful. He pretty much deserved the banning.

 

[PocketZeven]

Just look at the way his hand came down on her arm; that was clearly a karate chop.[/sarcasm]



There's surely reasonable cause to revoke Acosta's pass based on his actual actions, though. Right? He got to have his question dodged just like the individual before him and the next member of the WH press corps deserves the same opportunity, but he opted to be inconsiderate and continue his line of questioning. That ought to be justification enough to have him removed without resorting to spin and false narratives.

What struck me during the exchange between Acosta and Trump was the latter's "They weren't actors. They weren't actors. Do you think they were actors?" bit. Because apparently that's the only basis on which one can question material presented as corresponding to a narrative. It seems to me there's another group that likes to do that, though; your right-wing conspiracy theorists, such as those referring to victims and family members of victims at school shootings as "crisis actors". Resorting to such an apparent implication so quickly makes it seem as though he's been taking in heaps of that garbage.

This might be interesting for you. the video does make the lying seem more of a strategy then just being a pathological liar. Interesting he mentions that the research wasnt about Trump at all and how perfectly it applies to him.

The reporter shouldn't have resisted that the mike was being taken away from him at all. He has given his fair time to ask his questions, he was very rude and chaotic. The president asked him more than once to put down the mike and he kept ignoring him which was very disrespectful. He pretty much deserved the banning.

I would agree with that. If that was the official reason he was suspended. I have no idea what the rules are at these conferences, but if they do indeed are only allowed 1 question then make that the reason to suspend him.

But instead he was suspended for the reason that is gross exaggeration. "putting hands on an intern".

 

[Northstar]

Interesting he mentions that the research wasnt about Trump at all and how perfectly it applies to him.

I'd imagine it fits perfectly well with about 90% of politicians (the 10% that don't lie never get above county level politics).

Not sure what's more worrying, the people that blindly follow Trump, or the ones who despise him so much it clouds their view so much they ignore everything else. The sooner a majority of people recognize both parties are horrible and need to go the better.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'd imagine it fits perfectly well with about 90% of politicians (the 10% that don't lie never get above county level politics).

Not sure what's more worrying, the people that blindly follow Trump, or the ones who despise him so much it clouds their view so much they ignore everything else. The sooner a majority of people recognize both parties are horrible and need to go the better.

Sorry but did you see the video? It wasnt only about "normal" lying. Its the obvious and easily debunkable lies that is strategic and lets him control a narrative. I am not sure which politician uses the same tactic. Most lies are out of stupidity, ignorance or both.

 

[Northstar]

Sorry but did you see the video? It wasnt only about "normal" lying. Its the obvious and easily debunkable lies that is strategic and lets him control a narrative. I am not sure which politician uses the same tactic. Most lies are out of stupidity, ignorance or both.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it"

Again, Trump is horrible, but the people blinded with hate for him are just as bad.

 

[PocketZeven]

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it"

Again, Trump is horrible, but the people blinded with hate for him are just as bad.

Personally I dont hate him. I am just astonished that someone so morally corrupt can seemingly get away with everything, without consequence. It tells the wrong message to future generations. Basically its okay to lie, cheat on your partner, do shady business deals etc. POTUS should be something children aspire to be. Would you like your child to grow up a person like Trump?

I understand everyone makes a incidental white lie out of self preservation, but the volume Trump lies is astonishing.

 

[Northstar]

POTUS should be something children aspire to be.

Not sure there has been a good presidential role model for at least 50 years. Hell, the closest is Clinton and he fooled around with an intern!

 

[PocketZeven]

Not sure there has been a good presidential role model for at least 50 years. Hell, the closest is Clinton and he fooled around with an intern!

Except for some arguable policy choices and Clinton's cheating and even Nixon. Which in my opinion are big mistakes, but should not define their legacy. I personally cant think of that morally corrupt former Potus (of the last 50 years) I would have a problem with if my children aspired to be like them. However I am only judging them on their conduct as president and their persona before and outside the presidency.

 

[Northstar]

I personally cant think of that morally corrupt former Potus (of the last 50 years) I would have a problem with if my children aspired to be like them. However I am only judging them on their conduct as president and their persona before and outside the presidency.

Even W.?

 

[TexRex]

I have to say...I really didn't like President George W. Bush (of course he had his moments that warranted respect), but I'm loving former president George W. Bush. I'd really like to meet the man, actually. He just seems like a fun old guy.

I still grin at "Candygate".

 

[UKMikey]

I have to say...I really didn't like President George W. Bush (of course he had his moments that warranted respect), but I'm loving former president George W. Bush. I'd really like to meet the man, actually. He just seems like a fun old guy.

I still grin at "Candygate".

I know she was a murderer but when he gloated over that woman's death it wasn't a good look.

 

[Adamgp]

Dubya is a cool guy on a personal level. I got to meet him once, albeit very briefly.

My dad met him twice when he was commanding officer at the Milwaukee AFB. Bush gave him a full tour of Air Force 1, plus gave him a bunch of free stuff from AF1.