TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 145 of 170
Quote:That list would be
Originally posted by G:
I realize that communications professor Melissa Zimdars is full of great intentions, but she's just posted a list of what not to do for future misinformation/fake news sites. "If you want to be taken seriously, don't do these:"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53
V_81ZyitM/preview
Let's create some fake news to enrage Republicans: "I hear a rumor that Bernie scratched the initials DJT on bullets for his assault rifle." Critical thinkers would already know that did not happen, but Republican would not care. The GOP rage would know no limits, if they hear this fake news.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
Republicans don't care about fake or true. They can't stop believing fake facts, even if a Professor recommends they stop. Even Democrats don't care enough to do anything beyond complain very softly and in a calm tone of voice about fake facts. The classic article explains in "Timid Liberals Blew the Election by Flinching at Hillary Clinton's Email Server"
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/timid-liberals-flinching-hillar
y-clintons-email-server
From start to finish, on every TV channel, there was misleading, call it fake, news about Hillary's email. After summarizing what was true and what was misleading, the article ends here:
Quote:
Liberals should have defended her with gusto from the start. There was never anything here and no evidence that Clinton did anything seriously wrong. And yet we didn't. Many liberals just steered clear of the whole thing. Others—including me sometimes—felt like every defense had to contain a series of caveats acknowledging that, yes, the private server was a bad idea, harumph harumph. And some others didn't even go that far. The result was that in the public eye, both liberals and conservatives were more or less agreeing that there was a lot of smoke here. So smoke there was. And now Donald Trump is a month away from being president.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why? What American interests does this cross? I have asked over and what our AMERICAN interests are and yanno what?? NONE OF YOU KNOWS. But If you could figure our what our actual interests are, you'd be a lot less likely be be spun around by our elites and their fake news. Please, think long and hard what our AMERICAN interests are before you start getting all hysterical about "Russia".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually think that Drumpf has America's interests in mind when cow-towing to Putin & Russia? Yes, please do think long and hard about American, Russian, Putin and Drumpf interests. One thing is certain, kissing Putin's ass is in no way beneficial to the U.S. Drumpf's only interests are, like Putin's, lining his pockets with cash and liberated properties.
Do you really believe that Putin wants America to succeed? Drumpf is living in La La Land and Putin knows it. He's toying with him.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here, here!
Just keeping this thread at the top. See, at least I admit it!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:That list would be
Originally posted by G:
I realize that communications professor Melissa Zimdars is full of great intentions, but she's just posted a list of what not to do for future misinformation/fake news sites. "If you want to be taken seriously, don't do these:"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53
V_81ZyitM/preview
Let's create some fake news to enrage Republicans: "I hear a rumor that Bernie scratched the initials DJT on bullets for his assault rifle." Critical thinkers would already know that did not happen, but Republican would not care. The GOP rage would know no limits, if they hear this fake news.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
Republicans don't care about fake or true. They can't stop believing fake facts, even if a Professor recommends they stop. Even Democrats don't care enough to do anything beyond complain very softly and in a calm tone of voice about fake facts. The classic article explains in "Timid Liberals Blew the Election by Flinching at Hillary Clinton's Email Server"
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/timid-liberals-flinching-hillar
y-clintons-email-server
From start to finish, on every TV channel, there was misleading, call it fake, news about Hillary's email. After summarizing what was true and what was misleading, the article ends here:Quote:
Liberals should have defended her with gusto from the start. There was never anything here and no evidence that Clinton did anything seriously wrong. And yet we didn't. Many liberals just steered clear of the whole thing. Others—including me sometimes—felt like every defense had to contain a series of caveats acknowledging that, yes, the private server was a bad idea, harumph harumph. And some others didn't even go that far. The result was that in the public eye, both liberals and conservatives were more or less agreeing that there was a lot of smoke here. So smoke there was. And now Donald Trump is a month away from being president.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why yes, I do. And yes, you are.
Originally posted by second:
1kiki, I am dishonest you say?
Quote:I was just responding to YOUR claim. YOU said AMERICANS don't CARE about other AMERICANS. I showed they do. Now you want to move the goalposts to. State budgets. Voting. Crossings state lines. Texans. You're constantly shifting the goal posts. Who DIDN'T contribute. Like here:
Originally posted by second:
Your example was not honest.
Quote:THAT'S dishonest. (BTW, when you make a general statement - 'AMERICANS don't CARE about other AMERICANS' - even a small exception makes it false. But a 10% exception - for people donating specifically online - is a major exception.)
Originally posted by second: Would 13 million also vote in state and local elections? Yes, they would. That only leaves 310 million other Americans who did not contribute aid, even as little as 25 cents, to victims for whatever selfish or political reasons.
YOUR CLAIM IS FALSE.
Ethically, practically, and logically false.
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dissection begins. OBVIOUSLY, CLINTON DID SOMETHING WRONG. OBVIOUSLY, TRUMP DID SOMETHING RIGHT.
To deny that is to deny reality.
Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-23/top-white-house-economist-adm
its-94-all-new-jobs-under-obama-were-part-time
Top Ex-White House Economist Admits 94% Of All New Jobs Under Obama Were Part-Time
Just over six years ago, in December of 2010, we wrote "Charting America's Transformation To A Part-Time Worker Society", in which we predicted - and showed - that in light of the underlying changes resulting from the second great depression, whose full impacts remain masked by trillions in monetary stimulus … America is shifting from a traditional work force, one where the majority of new employment is retained on a full-time basis, to a "gig" economy, where workers are severely disenfranchised, and enjoy far less employment leverage, job stability and perks than their pre-crash peers. It also explains why despite the 4.5% unemployment rate, which the Fed has erroneously assumed is indicative of job market at "capacity", wage growth not only refuses to materialize, but as we showed yesterday, the growth in real disposable personal income was the lowest since 2014.
When we first penned our article, it was dubbed "fringe" tinfoil hattery, or in the latest vernacular, "fake news."
Fast forward 6 years, when a report by Harvard and Princeton economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger, confirms exactly what we warned. In their study, the duo show that from 2005 to 2015, the proportion of Americans workers engaged in what they refer to as “alternative work” soared during the Obama era, from 10.7% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015. Alternative, or "gig" work is defined as "temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors or freelancers", and is generally unsteady, without a fixed paycheck and with virtually no benefits.
The two economists also found that each of the common types of alternative work increased from 2005 to 2015—with the largest changes in the number of independent contractors and workers provided by contract firms, such as janitors that work full-time at a particular office, but are paid by a janitorial services firm.
Krueger, who until 2013 was also the top White House economist serving as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Obama, was "surprised" by the finding.
Quoted by quartz, he said “We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment.
While the finding is good news for some, such as graphic designers and lawyers who hate going to an office, for whom new technology and Obamacare has made it more appealing to become an independent contractor. But for those seeking a steady administrative assistant office job, the market is grim. It also explains why despite an apparent recovery in the labor market, wage growth has been non-existant, due to the lack of career advancement and salary increase options for this vast cohort which was hired over the past decade.
The decline of conventional full-time work has impacted every demographic. Whether this change is good or bad depends on what kinds of jobs people want. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger. He then added, perhaps sarcastically, that “while many of those who value flexibility and have a spouse with a stead
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dissection begins. OBVIOUSLY, CLINTON DID SOMETHING WRONG. OBVIOUSLY, TRUMP DID SOMETHING RIGHT.
To deny that is to deny reality.
The dissection from the other side:
As co-chair (with Ed Rollins) of the Great America PAC, OC political strategist Eric Beach had a key role in Donald Trump's stunning electoral win. And the PAC will continue to promote Trump's causes even after he takes office. Beach gives an insider's account of a wild election.
http://www.pbssocal.org/programs/inside-oc/pac-man-part-1/
http://www.pbssocal.org/programs/inside-oc/pac-man-part-2/
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dissection begins. OBVIOUSLY, CLINTON DID SOMETHING WRONG. OBVIOUSLY, TRUMP DID SOMETHING RIGHT.
To deny that is to deny reality.
How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumb
led-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To deny 1kiki's assumptions is to deny reality? Now 1kiki has "The Truth"? [/sarcasm off]
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The dissection begins. OBVIOUSLY, CLINTON DID SOMETHING WRONG. OBVIOUSLY, TRUMP DID SOMETHING RIGHT.
To deny that is to deny reality.
A letter to historians of the future — the 2016 election really was dominated by a controversy over emails
by Matthew Yglesias
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/25/14037576/trump-won-because-
of-emails
To Whom It May Concern:
Sitting at my desk in the winter of 2016-2017, I have no way of knowing what the future holds for the United States under the administration of Donald Trump. I hope it will all turn out for the best. But I fear that it will not. The election of a man temperamentally unfit to the presidency and lacking in the basic qualifications to perform the job, backed up by congressional allies who seem determined to ignore his flagrant corruption, is an alarming situation. The odds that he will systematically corrupt American institutions and install an authoritarian kleptocracy or blunder into some kind of catastrophic war seem simply too high to entirely discount.
And if something big and awful does happen, I know from my own reading of history that the scholars of the future will be sorely tempted to look for causes that are big in proportion to the consequences.
Historians will write of a growing trend toward partisan polarization and a brewing sense of political crisis dating back to Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. They’ll note the projected end of America’s white majority, the geopolitical revolution induced by Russia’s reinvention of itself as an international beacon of cultural conservatism, and the corrosive effect of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The “failures of neoliberalism” will come in for scrutiny.
All true and all important. But my message to the future is this. No matter how stupid it sounds, and no matter how much political and journalistic elites on all sides of America’s toxic politics began trying to ignore it as soon as the votes were counted, the dominant issue of the 2016 campaign was email server management.
The email story dominated the campaign
If that sounds far too boring and unimportant to have conceivably dominated the 2016 presidential campaign, then it is difficult to disagree with you. And yet the facts are what they are. Indeed, by September of 2015 — over a year before the voting — Washington Post political writer Chris Cillizza had already written at least 50 items about the email controversy.
Email fever reached its peak on two separate major occasions. One was when Comey closed the investigation. Instead of simply saying “we looked into it and there was no crime,” Comey sought to immunize himself from Clinton critics by breaking with standard procedure to offer extended negative commentary on Clinton’s behavior. He said she was “extremely careless.”
Comey then brought the email story back to the center of the campaign in late October by writing a letter to Congress indicating that the email case had been reopened due to new discoveries on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. It turned out that the new discoveries were an awfully flimsy basis for a subpoena, and the subpoena turned up nothing.
This all still sounds unimportant, but it was not at the time:
The New York Times dedicated 100 percent of its above-the-fold space to coverage of Comey’s letter to Congress.
Throughout the campaign season, network newscasts dedicated more time to Clinton’s email server stories than to stories about all policy issues combined.
Donald Trump’s campaign rallies featured regular “lock her up” chants, centering the email server as the opposition’s main criticism of Clinton.
Across five television networks and six major newspapers, 11 percent of campaign coverage was stories about Clinton’s email server.
Critically, one useful function of email-b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
letter to historians of the future — the 2016 election really was dominated by a controversy over emails-SECONDHAND
Oh, is this spin-the-wheel-of-excuses? Again?
Racism
Misogyny
Deplorables
Hacked vote counts
Comey
Fake news
BUT PUTIN!!!
The problem with the emails isn't that they were leaked (not hacked, leaked) but that they showed the real DNC to the public: DNC mired in corruption.
Yanno, it's not like the DNC wasn't told. Hubby and I must have gotten at least five of those written "opinion polls" from the DNC (where I had to write in my top three concerns because they weren't part of their "push poll", and guess which ones they were?) and every time they called, which was at least six times, hubby or I gave them at least a 10-minute earful. The problem was, they weren't listening and they didn't intend to listen.
Jimminy crimminy, SECONDHAND. The DNC needs a new mission, aside from representing banks, neocons, and big pharma.
Oooh! oooh! I have an idea! How about representing working-class Americans???
So stop the grieving process, that time is over. Get on your phone, and start reforming the DNC.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I love that you quote me in your signature, Signym, but per your usual, you are full of it. Do you have a PhD in Propaganda and Misdirection?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
"If you aren't aware, Signym is a lying sack of shit."- SECOND
A lot of people really did switch to Donald Trump at the last minute based on Comey’s letter about email. Actually there were two letters: Oct 28th and just before the election. The first said that Comey, once again, was trying to put Hillary behind bars for a felony. Please standby for the Justice Dept’s indictment.
The second letter said that Comey could not prove that Hillary should be imprisoned, but it implied that voters should wait for further developments after the election, when Comey would once again reopen the email server question.
Both letters made all the difference in the world:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-really-did-switch-to-trump-
at-the-last-minute/
Quote:
While no one moved from Trump to Clinton, 0.9 percent of our respondents moved from Clinton to Trump....Trump also outpaced Clinton among people who were previously undecided or third-party backers, with 3.1 percent of respondents moving from those categories to Trump while just 2.3 percent did the same for Clinton. Clinton also saw 3.1 percent of her October supporters defecting to third-party candidates or becoming undecided. Trump lost just 1.7 percent.
Let's add this up:
Trump gained 0.9 + 3.1 - 1.7 = +2.3 percent
Clinton gained -0.9 + 2.3 - 3.1 = -1.7 percent
The October poll ended on the 24th. FBI Director James Comey released his infamous letter on the 28th. The November poll then showed Hillary Clinton with a net loss of 4 percent compared to Trump.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3198222/Letter.pdf
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME