Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."

Sure, there is definitely a sensationalist element to the media, and especially to their coverage of Trump, where every second tweet is apparently a death knell to US democracy.

I'm just saying that this idea that journalists are out there calculating hit counts on their individual articles, then talking to the ad sales teams about what articles will generate the most revenue is silly. Actual journalism is a lot more... bureaucratic than that.

If this was 1985, you'd have a better case. But the media now encompasses a lot more than traditional journalists doing traditional journalism in print or on TV, and even the genuine news outlets heavily feature opinion pieces and obviously slanted pieces masquerading as journalism. Never mind all the ways the outrage machine targets and spoonfeeds us online.

Cripes, even an old-fashioned newspaper opinion columnist is evaluated on his/her ability to raise hackles and drive readership. Of course the media is about readership and viewership. They're for-profit organizations, at least in the U.S.

Journalists are no different from everyone else. They do not want to work that hard at their job, and will take the easy piece over the hard work anyday of the week. It is not a journalism problem but a human issue.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.

Still a better track record than Australia and the Emus...

1. President Trump believes that Canada burned the White House during the war of 1812.

2. He said this to the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau while on the phone with him.

3. President Trump brought it up as the reason why Canada could be labelled a "security risk" to the United States - and thus could be tariffed.



Ladies and gentlemen..........the President of the United States.

Did he actually bring it up as a reason explicitly? Afaik it coupd have been some sort of inappropriate joke. I know it's Trump and all but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

In other news: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meet-the-new-york-architect-who-was-a-key-figure-in-trumps-deals-and-connections-in-eastern-europe/ar-AAyiBmz?li=BBnbfcL

Thoughts?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Did he actually bring it up as a reason explicitly? Afaik it coupd have been some sort of inappropriate joke. I know it's Trump and all but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

In other news: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meet-the-new-york-architect-who-was-a-key-figure-in-trumps-deals-and-connections-in-eastern-europe/ar-AAyiBmz?li=BBnbfcL

Thoughts?

Repasting this, I don't know if it really sounds like a joke, incredibly awkward moment otherwise. His relationship with Trudeau doesn't strike me as friendly.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44394156 

Trump asks if Canada burnt down White House in call with PM 

..."Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" Mr Trump reportedly asked in a call with Mr Trudeau over new tariffs. 

It is not clear if the comment was intended as a joke, but CNN report that it followed an exchange in which Mr Trudeau asked how the US could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. 

The US imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from its allies - the EU, Canada and Mexico - last week. 

"It is simply ridiculous to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat to the US," Mr Trudeau has said of the move... 

Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)

http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703

 Wolfblade wrote:
Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)

http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703

Wow, that's pretty crazy. What's next, saying its ok to start licking lead? Its a dangerous material when people don't know it there, especially in your living space.

But was the EPA able to get a Chick-Fil-A franchise for Pruitt’s wife?

 gorgon wrote:
It's also important to note that this administration and Congress have secured both personal income tax cuts and a corporate tax cut, and have been pushing deregulation. These are all very mainstream GOP ideas that are supported by traditional Republicans. They might still think Trump is a buffoon, and might grit their teeth every time Trump opens his mouth or tweets. But they aren't going to *turn on their party and their party's defacto leader* because of some sparring over trade while taxes are being cut and companies are being given more freedom.

De-regulation appears on no list of major electoral issues, its an important brand element to Republicans, but there's a reason we don't see breathless reporting about Dodd-Frank rollbacks.

Then remember Trump campaigned on raising taxes on the rich. Remember that? He said his tax changes were going to cost him a lot of money. Then after winning he passed a tax cut where 90% of the gain went to very rich people like him. Republicans voted for the Trump who said he was going to raise taxes on the very rich, and now they support Trump because he cut taxes on the very rich.

I don't want to diminish what your Republican friends have told you, but you have to remember that almost everything voters say is a post decision rationalisation often made after the fact. We make a decision, then we figure out a reason why. If later on that reason falls apart we don't admit our judgement was wrong, instead we invent a new reason why. It doesn't mean we should dismiss what people say about their votes, but it does mean we shouldn't just take it at face value either.

You mentioned tribalism in an earlier post, and that's the reality of most voting. People pick a side, often based on affinity more than any actual policy position. Then once they've picked their team they engage on issues, they won't always take their team's view on every issue, but they'll start from a position of being more open to their team's view than the opposition's view. In more partisan times this approach is stronger than normal. This is how a technical, largely abstract issue like free trade can get overwhelming support, then swing 180' in a few years because a single leader rises to the top of the party and changes the party position on that issue.

I'm sure that some things might look a certain way when you're viewing this country from 9000 miles away. However, I can assure you that there's more nuance at ground level with the GOP than it might appear, especially regionally.

Of course there's nuance. But there's also a big picture.

And bringing this back to the original point, that's why that 87% figure could be a little deceiving. All those supporters aren't of the MAGA-hat-wearing, rally-attending variety.

Reality remains that the party was near uniform in support of free trade, then switched when the party leader went in another direction. It doesn't matter how many Republicans are MAGA hat wearers and how many are quiet, sombre types, we know what they did as a whole.

Honestly if a voter says they do not support xyz policies then votes in support of them I am going to call what they say a lie in face of their actions. Maybe it's a lie that person actually believes, but if a person's words say A and their actions say B I am going to see them as having the opinion of B. A statement that says otherwise is a falsehood in my eyes, on top of showing a severe lack of integrity. And that goes regardless of the party they are voting for. I live in California so I get to see Dems elected on little more than tribalism plenty often.

@Sebster I don't want to quote the numbers exactly since it's been several months since I looked at them but I recall the tax benefits do not go 90% to the very rich, more in the 70-something percent. That doesn't undermine your point at all but I think it'd be worth double-checking before tossing out a specific number.

 gorgon wrote:
If this was 1985, you'd have a better case. But the media now encompasses a lot more than traditional journalists doing traditional journalism in print or on TV, and even the genuine news outlets heavily feature opinion pieces and obviously slanted pieces masquerading as journalism. Never mind all the ways the outrage machine targets and spoonfeeds us online.

Cripes, even an old-fashioned newspaper opinion columnist is evaluated on his/her ability to raise hackles and drive readership. Of course the media is about readership and viewership. They're for-profit organizations, at least in the U.S.

Of course media is driven by readership and clicks, but the relationship is nothing like you describe. When a couple of WaPo reporters were sent to cover the special senate election in Alabama, do you think there was any modelling done of what clicks their stories might uncover? When they started following up on rumours about Roy Moore, do you think they first got approval based on estimated clicks if the story could be verified? It doesn't work that way.

You mention the outrage machine, and it is a problematic part of the media. What you're missing though is that most of the people spamming sensationalist nonsense actually believe what they're saying. The real dynamic isn't journalists figuring out what rates and saying it even though they know it is manipulative or dishonest. The real dynamic is thousands of voices all giving us their opinion (maybe a little exaggerated, but still genuine), and viewers then being drawn to the most sensationalistic, resulting in those journalists being given greater platforms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Journalists are no different from everyone else. They do not want to work that hard at their job, and will take the easy piece over the hard work anyday of the week. It is not a journalism problem but a human issue.

There's also been massive cuts to reporting staff, so the same amount of copy is now produced by a fraction as many people. Needing to produce so many more stories, journalists have increasingly taken to copying from other reporting, or even copying from government/corporate press releases just to reach deadlines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In other news: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meet-the-new-york-architect-who-was-a-key-figure-in-trumps-deals-and-connections-in-eastern-europe/ar-AAyiBmz?li=BBnbfcL

Thoughts?

The link went weird when I clicked on it. Is it the story of Trump's architect who dropped off the planet when contacted by the media? If so, it could be something, it could be nothing. It's possible that he'd closed his business already, as his major client had moved in to politics, and so when contacted by the media it prompted him to actually shut everything down. On the other hand, it could also be the guy knows the financing was fishy, and he'd rather disappear than have to make a choice between speaking out against his former client or lying.

Don't know what to make of it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Not sure if the latest EPA/Trump thing has made it here yet but, asbestos isn't poisonous anymore, it's just a mob conspiracy (as in, the criminal mob)

http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703

Wow, that's pretty crazy. What's next, saying its ok to start licking lead? Its a dangerous material when people don't know it there, especially in your living space.

Well, the EPA is still doing some enforcement when it comes to lead paint.

But fething asbestos?

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly if a voter says they do not support xyz policies then votes in support of them I am going to call what they say a lie in face of their actions. Maybe it's a lie that person actually believes, but if a person's words say A and their actions say B I am going to see them as having the opinion of B. A statement that says otherwise is a falsehood in my eyes, on top of showing a severe lack of integrity. And that goes regardless of the party they are voting for. I live in California so I get to see Dems elected on little more than tribalism plenty often.

How many Republicans were terribly concerned about the deficit from 2008 until 2016? Then when Republicans win they cheer on a deficit funded tax cut without any effort to explain the reversal of position.

I agree that tribalism is just as strong with democrat and liberal voters. The difference, I think, is how much the leadership relies on manipulating that tribalism rather than just making a direct appeal to the voter's interests. Democratic leaders simply don't do on anywhere near the same scale as Republican leaders. Not because Democrats are more genuine or moral anything, but because there are more Democrat positions that are broadly popular with voters, and Democrats don't have loyalist outfits like FOX News looking to parrot their talking points.

Just to clarify, liberals have plenty of positions driven by tribalism, like the call to impeach Trump now based on... what Mueller might have? But this is grassroots liberal silliness. The contrasting rightwing silliness, like the faux outrage over kneeling athletes is driven by Republican leaders in government and in the media.

@Sebster I don't want to quote the numbers exactly since it's been several months since I looked at them but I recall the tax benefits do not go 90% to the very rich, more in the 70-something percent. That doesn't undermine your point at all but I think it'd be worth double-checking before tossing out a specific number.

The figure I use is how the bill finally settles when all the changes are in place in 2025. Everything before then is a temporary gain or loss, that 2025 final position is what it will be permanently from then on. So this means stuff like the temporary middle class benefits will have sunset.

I know Republicans claim they can be extended or made permanent if Democrats will let it happen, but if that happens then the cost of the tax cut balloons to over $2tn. As soon as Republicans talk about the tax cut costing more than $2tn, I'll talk about those middle class tax cuts being part of a long term structure.

Frankly all tax hikes and cuts need to have sunset provisions...and make them vote for it in October right before elections.

Weird divergence in the polls, Trump's numbers are holding steady and maybe even trending up, while the Democrat lead in the generic ballot is surging. From May 22nd until June 7 Trump has gone from 11 points underwater to 10 underwater, but the generic ballot in the same time has gone from Dem +4 to Dem +8. It's the first time I've noticed a major shift in one poll that wasn't tied to a similar shift in the other. I think it is probably the result of Trump approval being an 'all voters' model, while the generic ballot surge is because they're now shifting from 'all voter' to 'likely voter' models, which is giving Dems a huge advantage in enthusiasm. Will have to see what 538 publishes in the next week or so explaining what's happened.

Not 100% sure what this means for November, but it is sign that while Trump can hurt other Republicans, he can't actually do much to help them.

 whembly wrote:
Frankly all tax hikes and cuts need to have sunset provisions...and make them vote for it in October right before elections.

No, because stability and long term direction really matter. Think of the corporate tax cut, for instance. The argument is it encourages investment, but who is gonna invest in a five or ten year operation in a country based on tax laws, when those tax laws might be around for another two years, or maybe not. Companies will just assume worst case, and only invest if the deal is great regardless of the tax cut. Which means no stimulus from investment encouraged in to the country due to lower taxes, which means no case for company tax cuts.

 sebster wrote:
No, because stability and long term direction really matter. Think of the corporate tax cut, for instance. The argument is it encourages investment, but who is gonna invest in a five or ten year operation in a country based on tax laws, when those tax laws might be around for another two years, or maybe not. Companies will just assume worst case, and only invest if the deal is great regardless of the tax cut. Which means no stimulus from investment encouraged in to the country due to lower taxes, which means no case for company tax cuts.

Aside from that aspect there's also the cost to the govt. to implement new tax changes. Formatting and printing news forms, the increased volume of phone calls and letters to the IRS, training employees to answer taxpayer questions, etc. The latest tax cuts have already made a mess of things and there's barely any increase in funding to cover it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.

Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.

Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?

It's even more sad that they use religion to support their view when in fact if you DO believe in God and bible then by opposing gays you are easily shown to be railing against God's Decisions...

Bah. Those guys are nuts. Forget logic with them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

Everytime i see something like this it amazes me how narcissistic and narrow minded people are. They can take something about love between two other people and twist it into being about them and what they feel about something that doesnt affect them in the slightest.

Its also kind of sad - who has the time to give a gak what other people do?

It's even more sad that they use religion to support their view when in fact if you DO believe in God and bible then by opposing gays you are easily shown to be railing against God's Decisions...

Bah. Those guys are nuts. Forget logic with them.

Unless of course you also believe in God's neighbour having influence. The whole crazy "tornado's are a punishment from above for gay people" kind of fringe rethoric. People find a way to rationalize their hatred, religion just provides an easy excuse to point to.

How are the staff going to tell which potential customers are gay in order to ban them?

Huffington Post asked all 235 Republican members of the House if they were support impeachment if Trump pardoned himself. A grand total of 1 said he would. It was Justin Amash, who represents the district of Idon'tknowI'veneverheardofhim.

Hey, you guys remember back to 2016, when people said Trump would be contained because Republicans would be just as hostile to him as Democrats? Didn't quite turn out that way, did it?

 ScarletRose wrote:
Aside from that aspect there's also the cost to the govt. to implement new tax changes. Formatting and printing news forms, the increased volume of phone calls and letters to the IRS, training employees to answer taxpayer questions, etc. The latest tax cuts have already made a mess of things and there's barely any increase in funding to cover it.

Good point. Adding to that there's also enormous costs to the HR and admin sections of companies, processing new rates and informing staff of the changes. Then there's the costs to everyone trying to manage their tax affairs, for instance if company tax cuts are passed by pass through trust rate reductions are dropped, millions will have to rework their structures. I'm not sure too many would weep that many tears for people running elaborate tax minimisation schemes, but it has a significant flow on cost through the economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How are the staff going to tell which potential customers are gay in order to ban them?

In a hardware store?

"Nigel, don't pick the pink hammer, I think it's a trap."

Maybe if you walk past the power tools without looking and ask for pastel colour paint.

I wonder how long it takes before they sue him over this. The article makes it sound like he mainly does it for the attention but doesn't really want legal troubles.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Trump being nervous about Canada because of the war of 1812 makes me smile, especially since all the Americans I know get annoyed when I point out they lost to Canadian colonials and First Nations.

"Surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto! " -President Alan Alda, USA, 1995

Toronto is a garbage dump, do it! I dare you!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

I fully support their right to be a complete idiot and cut off a section of their customer base. If they want to open themselves up to boycott and business failure, that’s their choice, it’s a private enterprise.

Trump calls for Russia to be in G7 meetings

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

That didn't take long.

That's fine. They are free not to contract. Others are free to organize a picket line during their business everyday until they close. Freedom, ain't it great!