45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
walm said:
scherzkeks said:
Stickyfinger said:
Lets be real....they ALL lied...
Well as most of us know, they always do to varying degrees.As always, follow the money.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-e...
Laughable how much you are willing to ignore on Trump's side.
minimoog said:
Stickyfinger said:
Half, 1/4 truth ?....wtf is that, is that almost perfect ?
Are you genuinely unable to comprehend what half true or mostly false means?No wonder he won with fans like you around.
As said...they BOTH LIE but according to a web site one a little less than another, we are truly fked then.
davepoth said:
There is unfairness inherent in saying that one person's vote is more important than someone else's, which is in effect what the electoral college does. Most countries use one man one vote, and even the UK regularly redistricts to attempt to equalise the power of a single vote in general elections.
In the original framing it was a compromise, as the southern states would not stand for "negroes" voting for the president. Added to that, the three-fifths compromise would give them more votes in the electoral college without having to allow the slaves to vote. Here are the relevant proceedings of the constitutional convention.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&a...
As it turns out the compromise they made nearly 250 years ago works for other reasons these days.
The other point about the electoral college is that it wasn't originally a rubber stamping exercise. The founding fathers imagined a large field of potential presidential candidates, and the electors were not tied to a particular candidate by their state's vote. They were given the duty of choosing on the electorate's behalf.
One of the big problems of the electoral college is that IMV it has contributed to the polarisation of the country. The Republicans have essentially given up on big urban areas, and the Democrats have done the same in rural areas. A one man one vote system would force the Republican party to attract votes from the cities, which would mean a moderation in their perspective.
Quite.In the original framing it was a compromise, as the southern states would not stand for "negroes" voting for the president. Added to that, the three-fifths compromise would give them more votes in the electoral college without having to allow the slaves to vote. Here are the relevant proceedings of the constitutional convention.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&a...
As it turns out the compromise they made nearly 250 years ago works for other reasons these days.
The other point about the electoral college is that it wasn't originally a rubber stamping exercise. The founding fathers imagined a large field of potential presidential candidates, and the electors were not tied to a particular candidate by their state's vote. They were given the duty of choosing on the electorate's behalf.
One of the big problems of the electoral college is that IMV it has contributed to the polarisation of the country. The Republicans have essentially given up on big urban areas, and the Democrats have done the same in rural areas. A one man one vote system would force the Republican party to attract votes from the cities, which would mean a moderation in their perspective.
Stickyfinger said:
So Joseph Goebbels was better than Adolf Hitler ?
As said...they BOTH LIE but according to a web site one a little less than another, we are truly fked then.
As I have said before, I'm no fan of Clinton at all.As said...they BOTH LIE but according to a web site one a little less than another, we are truly fked then.
In my view the subject of ongoing debate should be Trumpy. Clinton and her faults is old irrelevant news. It's illuminating how quickly the Trumpettes reach for her record as a smokescreen to deflect from their risible hero.
scherzkeks said:
walm said:
scherzkeks said:
Stickyfinger said:
Lets be real....they ALL lied...
Well as most of us know, they always do to varying degrees.As always, follow the money.
Stickyfinger said:
minimoog said:
Stickyfinger said:
Half, 1/4 truth ?....wtf is that, is that almost perfect ?
Are you genuinely unable to comprehend what half true or mostly false means?No wonder he won with fans like you around.
As said...they BOTH LIE but according to a web site one a little less than another, we are truly fked then.
and how people use silly "names" to degrade the argument.
Both are revolting IMO and both let down the US public both at home and in the larger world.
Both are revolting IMO and both let down the US public both at home and in the larger world.
Blue Cat said:
So we can forgive Hitler because Goebbels was nearly as bad, interesting point of view to take.
oh please....I really do not know how to respond to that other than walk into a wall with my head leadingEdited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 17th January 14:10
Blue Cat said:
Stickyfinger said:
minimoog said:
Stickyfinger said:
Half, 1/4 truth ?....wtf is that, is that almost perfect ?
Are you genuinely unable to comprehend what half true or mostly false means?No wonder he won with fans like you around.
As said...they BOTH LIE but according to a web site one a little less than another, we are truly fked then.
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 17th January 14:12
p1stonhead said:
scherzkeks said:
walm said:
scherzkeks said:
Stickyfinger said:
Lets be real....they ALL lied...
Well as most of us know, they always do to varying degrees.As always, follow the money.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-e...
Laughable how much you are willing to ignore on Trump's side.
Trump tweeted an article from a site owned by a Republican.
Has any connection to the fact that:
Politifact masquerades as an objective, fact-checking organization.
scherzkeks said:
p1stonhead said:
scherzkeks said:
walm said:
scherzkeks said:
Stickyfinger said:
Lets be real....they ALL lied...
Well as most of us know, they always do to varying degrees.As always, follow the money.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-e...
Laughable how much you are willing to ignore on Trump's side.
Trump tweeted an article from a site owned by a Republican.
Has any connection to the fact that:
Politifact masquerades as an objective, fact-checking organization.
So both are owned by big contributors (one is not just a Republican but actually potentially part of Trumps team) for the people they are defending and one is masquerading and the other isnt?!
Got any facts to back that up? Which bits are lying/absolutely the truth on either article? Sources would be helpful.
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 17th January 14:20
scherzkeks said:
Politifact masquerades as an objective, fact-checking organization.
I imagine one could research the political leanings of all its funding sources and conclude that there weren't many Trump-leaning among them.Given that the aim of the organisation is to expose lies in politics, and Trump is a 'politician' who lies his arse off all the live long day, this isn't entirely surprising.
You'd have more of a chance of impressing people with your 'not objective' point if Politifact didn't also track and investigate the lies and half-lies told by the Clinton side, but obviously it does. Presumably you've noticed this, so you must have concluded that they are massively underplaying Clinton's lies, and massively overplaying Trumpy's lies, all because 'funding!'.
I suppose you're right. Far better we cut out all these vested interests, ignore them and the MSM, and all the other people and lobbyists with money in the Dem's game, and just believe everything Trumpy says. I'm sure everything will be just peachy if we clear our minds, bow in supplication and take his word as Gospel.
Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 17th January 14:32
I think most people would raise an eyebrow to any head of state posting stuff like this: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/8195419...
I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
p1stonhead said:
So both are owned by big contributors (one is owned by basically someone who manages what goes out into the press about Trump!)
p1stonhead said:
for the people they are defending and one is masquerading and the other isnt?!
The story you linked to is a factual report on fake news put out by Buzzfeed. p1stonhead said:
Got any facts to back that up? Which bits are lying/absolutely the truth on either article? Sources would be helpful.
Sure, a 5-second scan of google produces:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/politifac...
scherzkeks said:
p1stonhead said:
So both are owned by big contributors (one is owned by basically someone who manages what goes out into the press about Trump!)
p1stonhead said:
for the people they are defending and one is masquerading and the other isnt?!
The story you linked to as a factual report on fake news put out by Buzzfeed. p1stonhead said:
Got any facts to back that up? Which bits are lying/absolutely the truth on either article? Sources would be helpful.
Sure, a 5-second scan of google produces:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/politifac...
minimoog said:
scherzkeks said:
Politifact masquerades as an objective, fact-checking organization.
You'd have more of a chance of impressing people with your 'not objective' point if Politifact didn't also track and investigate the lies and half-lies told by the Clinton sideEdited by minimoog on Tuesday 17th January 14:32
I quoted Kissenger a few posts back in reference to Countdown's logic. I think that quote is appropriate again.
Feel free to post a link to any outlet, biased or otherwise, that shows that Trump DOESN'T tell significantly more lies than Hillary and/or Walter Mitty.
I did a highly academic 2-3 minutes on google and every source showed Trump to be an OUTRAGEOUS liar, vs. everyone else being a merely common-or-garden variety BS merchant.
I did a highly academic 2-3 minutes on google and every source showed Trump to be an OUTRAGEOUS liar, vs. everyone else being a merely common-or-garden variety BS merchant.
roachcoach said:
I think most people would raise an eyebrow to any head of state posting stuff like this: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/8195419...
I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
He isn't a head of state yet, not that you said he was, and by all accounts recognises that the same type of social media comms policy won't be appropriate as potus. Which is a shame; here's hoping he doesn't morph into something spinny.I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
turbobloke said:
roachcoach said:
I think most people would raise an eyebrow to any head of state posting stuff like this: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/8195419...
I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
He isn't a head of state yet, not that you said he was, and by all accounts recognises that the same type of social media comms policy won't be appropriate as potus. Which is a shame; here's hoping he doesn't morph into something spinny.I'd honestly expect him to have more important things to do with his time.
And isnt PEOTUS the same thing? How is it different in terms of influence across the country?
walm said:
Feel free to post a link to any outlet, biased or otherwise, that shows that Trump DOESN'T tell significantly more lies than Hillary and/or Walter Mitty.
I did a highly academic 2-3 minutes on google and every source showed Trump to be an OUTRAGEOUS liar, vs. everyone else being a merely common-or-garden variety BS merchant.
The burden of proof falls on the individual making a claim. I did a highly academic 2-3 minutes on google and every source showed Trump to be an OUTRAGEOUS liar, vs. everyone else being a merely common-or-garden variety BS merchant.
Will a year be enough time for your scientific analysis?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff