rokkerkory
Member
I am sure trump will mark these countries with a ‘C’ just like he did for the folks that wanted to rent his apartments. In your logic of looking at people as people, ‘C’ probably stands for COOL.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump's first year as a president
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
I am sure trump will mark these countries with a ‘C’ just like he did for the folks that wanted to rent his apartments. In your logic of looking at people as people, ‘C’ probably stands for COOL.
Dizagaox
Member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...yment-for-adult-film-stars-silence-1515787678
Murdoch's turned on Trump. WSJ reporting he had an affair with a porn star a year after marrying Melania, and paid her $130k to keep quiet about it.
Murdoch's turned on Trump. WSJ reporting he had an affair with a porn star a year after marrying Melania, and paid her $130k to keep quiet about it.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
I can hear Fox News already trying to find a way to blame this on Hillary.
Oh yeah, Fox News is basically running the white house now.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Trump has cheated on every wife of his, all 3 of them.
That makes him smart, or something
generaldane
Banned
A fat rich dumb guy who think he's smarter than he actually is..I regularly read Trump supporters forums to get an inside look and it blows my mind how just about eerything he does is hailed as brilliant, granted now and again you will have some guy who goes against the grain and express a shadow of a doubt only to be shouted down by the others..kinda remind me of here actually just on the other end of the extreme.
Vicetrailia
Banned
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-s-history-breaking-decorum-remarks-race-ethnicity-n837181
Last edited by a moderator:
Rocket Number 22
Member
Yeah I have made the mistake of reading /pol/ .....some seriously deluded people there supporting him no matter what
Kadayi
Banned
I'm seeing all of this furore over 'shithole' countries? Is there actually any evidence of this being said or is it just more anonymous sources being taken as fact? I think Trump is all sorts of off the wall, but I'd like to think that people are nailing him down for actual things that happened and not on the basis of hearsay. It's a bad look for democracy if the press go down that route in the believability stakes, and it sets a bad precedent that becomes the new normal.
Last edited:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Senator Durbin (D) directly and Senator Flake (R) indirectly.
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/368728-durbin-says-trump-made-hateful-remarks
So one democrat (no love lost) and a Republican who apparently regularly butts head with Trump but wasn't actually in attendance? But no others from the meeting have stepped forward? Seems legit
So one democrat (no love lost) and a Republican who apparently regularly butts head with Trump but wasn't actually in attendance? But no others from the meeting have stepped forward? Seems legit
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Not exactly "unsubstantiated smear campaign" when you've got two named senators as sources. I've edited my previous post though, as you're right that Flake wasn't present.
Kadayi
Banned
I simply questioned whether it was anonymous sources as I couldn't initially find any source, just lots of chest beating outrage reaction from various global luminaries (where does Ja Rule stand on this?) I searched for the names you mentioned and The Hill article was one of the first hits that came up, and based on that it doesn't look like either of those two are exactly reliable by any measure.
I thought based on the outrage it was going to be a recorded conversation or one of Trump's infamous tweets not a couple of politicians with axes to grind. Don't get me wrong, it may well have happened, but as a someone who undertook media studies and has marvelled at the insane levels of disinformation and false narratives that have plagued global mainstream news media for the last couple of decades I'm hesitant to give too much credence to what appear to amount to little more than a case of hearsay and its rather troubling that innumerable public figures are just taking it as a given.
For the record I'm not a Republican, in fact, I'm not even an American. I'm one of those filthy Eurolanders living under the joy of Theresa May (/s). I just find the whole carousel of media coverage of Trump fascinating in a slow car crash way. I think he's all sorts of wrong, but the manner in which the media has been out to get him from day one is so much desperate straw grasping at times, it's inherently damaging to the integrity and trust people put into such news institutions and the normalization of these sort of flimsy character attacks is a troubling sign for the future of journalism and it's hard to see how if at all, going forward this behaviour can ever be walked back and trust be re-established. We are past the Rubicon.
Last edited:
Super Mario
Banned
Knowing what we know about the media, and Trump, I'd bet there is truth to both, but it is all extremely overblown.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Trump is perfectly apt to victim blame.
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said:
Edit: Both sides of what Frum said are dangerous, mind you.
Last edited:
Tiger Woods must be a genius or something then.
rokkerkory
Member
Dems should not do any type of deal with clean DACA bill. They should force government shut down as well, people will blame the GOP since they own all 3 branches of the government at this point.
GOP and Fox News have their propaganda game on point. I wouldn't be surprised if they successfully blame it on Hillary since their base eats anything they give
lifa-cobex
Member
I hear Bill Clinton is pretty switched on.
rokkerkory
Member
Hillary and Obama's fault I am sure.
BANGS
Banned
I love how you say this like it's unique to them...
Swass
Member
People place far too much emphasis on the stock market and what it means for the economy and the average citizen. All the stock market doing well means is rich people are doing well since 80% of stocks are owned by the elite. If we look to the middle class and poor, we see wages have stagnated and credit card debt is at an all time high. People are working more hours just to keep their heads above water. Let Trump take credit for the market.. because he is also going to eat it when it crashes.. and a crash is coming.. right now the elite 1% is making 24% of the nations income.. everytime the number gets that high we have a huge crash.. buckle up!Considering every democrat I know thought Trump would tank the economy I'd say the DJIA having the strongest year in years is a huge success.
It's so disingenuous to credit Obama for a strong economy in December of 2017 when you would have happily blamed Trump if it was in the gutter.
I'm not happy he's the president, but he has had success and he's not literally Hitler.
It's also funny that people assume when a crash was predicted under Trump that somehow meant it would happen the day he took office. His economic policy is only now going into effect and the tax bill is like putting gas on the fire.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Actually, it means that businesses are doing well. Businesses doing well means more jobs and higher paying jobs for the middle class...
Swass
Member
Businesses doing well does not translate to jobs and higher pay.. this has been debunked over and over again.. money does not trickle down.. never has never will.
Dusk Soldier
Member
Businesses are just like regular people. The more money they have the more money they're willing to spend.
Neverwinter27
Member
Put it this way, based on their leadership and management tendencies and skills in the office, which president would you want to work for if he was your boss, Obama or Trump? This simple question will identify your true alignment.
rokkerkory
Member
DHS secretary doesn’t know if norway is mostly white hahahaha!!
Last edited:
Swass
Member
No they are nothing alike.. businesses get more greedy the more money they get.. excess money goes to corporate management and shareholders not to the peons or to make the products and/or services cheaper.
I'd like to work for Bernie as he makes it seem like he would care about everyone from the top to the bottom.. with emphasis on the bottom because he knowx without them they won't be successful.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Trickle down economics via tax breaks is a totally different concept than businesses doing well as shown via the stock market. The former is just giving the guys at the top more money, the latter mean the business is doing more business and bigger business and that requires more humans and more qualified humans to do that actual business...
But please tell me more about how either of these situations has been "debunked"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/wal...wage-give-employees-bonus-after-tax-bill.html
Last edited:
Swass
Member
You do know that walmart closed 65 Sams club locations hours after that was announced right? Is that something that should be happening in a climate where corporations are making record profits and that's before they're seen the advantage of the tax breaks? And giving corporations more money via tax breaks so they "do well" is the very definition of trickle down economics. Clearly you need to educate yourself further if you aren't aware of what the concept is and that it is nothing more than a fallacy.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Banned
Wal-Mart laid off 11,000 employees with that announcement, also most people got $200 dollar bonuses. If you were there for 20 years you can get $1,000.
These breaks and windfalls mostly gave big corporations more capability to acquire companies, other than that demand drives growth, so they're hoping that middleclass breaks will drive demand.
Last edited by a moderator:
BANGS
Banned
You guys do realize that closing stores means they weren't good locations, and firing employees means their work wasn't needed? Those two events have nothing to do with extra tax money, those are completely independent business decisions. Those employees and stores weren't performing as needed, throwing extra tax money won't make them magically profitable. Having extra tax money does mean sharing it with your employees though, which is the example I brought up of good trickle down economics.
Stay focused guys lol
Tax breaks allow you to not only share with your employees, but more importantly allow you to grow and take risks by having more cash in pocket. Please take a business class in college, if they still offer those anymore...
Stay focused guys lol
Tax breaks allow you to not only share with your employees, but more importantly allow you to grow and take risks by having more cash in pocket. Please take a business class in college, if they still offer those anymore...
SpartanN92
Banned
Trickle Down economics is a false term, a perjorative of “Supply side economics” and has been used by the left to mischaracterize supply side economics for their own benefit.
On a side note I was paid a considerable bonus by my company this Christmas in anticipation of retained earnings laws changing in 2018. Thank you Trump!
On a side note I was paid a considerable bonus by my company this Christmas in anticipation of retained earnings laws changing in 2018. Thank you Trump!
Vicetrailia
Banned
It is not a result of trickle down economics. This whole thing is an ongoing strategic move that was made easier to swallow and publicize. Wal-Mart raised its minumum wage to $10 last year. The company is rolling, it sees growth (mostly online), and will continue to increase its investment in employees as a strategic move against amazon whose acquiring stores. Wal-Mart over the last few years has been moving towards employee retention.
Last edited by a moderator:
Swass
Member
I can't speak on all the location closed, but the Sams club that is closing here in Arizona on Chandler and Arizona Ave is a great location and always busy.. The 2 events happened within hours of each other, but without being in walmart corporate we are both speculating on whether the 2 events coincided with each other or not.
Corporations have been making record profits for a few years now.. they already had the money to grow and take risks yet wages have stagnated and companies are downsizing and closing..
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
You're right that we cannot know, but I seems incredibly unlikely that a corporate entity would shut down a location that brings in profit just to spend more money on raises? Doesn't make sense no matter what kinda voodoo math you use...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
These "flimsy character attacks" have been a feature of politics for a long time. Hundreds of years. I've just been reading a biography of Rachel Beer, who edited the Sunday Times and the Observer in the 1890s and it was not much different then. Remember the scandal over Obama ordering Dijon Mustard?
The difference now is not, mostly, the press. It is that the Trump administration gives them daily/almost hourly fodder because it is so reekingly carcrashingly awful.
Regarding this particular shithole, it is I think instructive that (a) it has been explicitly reported by one Dem senator (b) explicitly confirmed by one (admittedly absent) Rep senator (c) explicitly not-recalled (but not denied) by other senators and admin staff present, and (d) the only rebuttal that the White House can come up with is that he said shithouse rather than shithole and that Haiti may or may not have been included.
From that there are conclusions to be reasonably drawn.
Plus, regarding the Rubicon, that was crossed in 1996 when Fox News came into being.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Long way back I spent some time doing big-corporate thuggery professionally. Ideally if you are going to shut something down you do it before it goes into loss - for three reasons (1) after it has gone into loss is too late (2) before it goes into loss you have more time to maneuver (3) in terms of balancing the books you trade off the cost of shutting it down against the current years profits, then it doesn't come out as an extraordinary item in the accounts.
And because you have time to move things around, you tie in in with good news for someone (customers, shareholders, public, staff, not necessarily in that order).
You don't do it just to spend money on raises. But if you are going to shut a bunch of stuff and there's a government-sponsored way of raising wages at no really extra cost, then that's when you do it.
Kadayi
Banned
Is inherent bias in news reporting? Sure, that is part and parcel of any news organisation. You employ likeminded people which naturally generates an internal perspective whether it is explicit (as in Fox News or say the Guardian) or implicit (more BBC) but simply because that may be the case, doesn't necessarily mean that checks and balances should go out of the window. Social media is also having a huge impact on peoples perceptions as well because the algorithms and filtering that underlie things feed you more of what you appear to want, which ultimately generates a political echo chamber of group-think. Increasingly people can't see the wood for the trees, which is not a good thing (If Clinton has fewer cheerleaders around her, she might have been more inclined to take the fight to Trump in the states that mattered, rather than sit on her laurels).
I think it's pretty telling that you've already bought into what amounts to little more than an accusation as a fact, even though there are other people who were in attendance who don't agree with that person's statement. You're already committed to it being the truth, because it ultimately aligns with your opinion on Trump, even if it may, in reality, be a complete fabrication (short of a tape appearing we'll never truly know). Reality is less about what happened versus peoples perception of what they hoped happened, and the narratives they build around them.
Last edited:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No. What I have done is assess the evidence. What you've got is a clear, specific, detailed allegation on one side against blanket denials on the other. Of course each side has political gains to make or losses to avert, but in general a blanket denial is unconvincing.
Consider how you might respond to the accusation "you killed Dr Black with the candlestick in the scullery":
a) actually I didn't. I was at the time chatting with Miss Scarlet in the billiard room.
b) that's false, #fakenews
The latter is unconvincing and poor evidence because it does not offer any alternative facts. In this case we have nobody offering a version of what Trump said that is at odds with the allegation (bar the really odd claim that he said shithouse rather than shithole, which is scarcely material and rather telling wouldn't you think?) but instead a bluster of blanket denials and claimed loss of memory. If Trump said something different it would be the simplest thing in the world to say what it was that he actually did say. But they're not doing that, and the only credible reason for them not doing that is that the allegation is true - which means they would all have to collude to get the same story out, which they dare not do for fear someone breaks ranks. Therefore, to a high probability, Trump said what he is accused of saying.
I didn't do all the legal training for nothing.
BANGS
Banned
So they predicted those stores would be a loss in the near future and shut them down... I still fail to see how this is a problem...
Vicetrailia
Banned
This might be some of the reason, can't take it all at face value though.
Underperforming and cannibalization may not mean not profitable, but satisfactory to reduce company overhead (not making enough profit to be valuable), repurpose for a different strategy, or much more.
Last edited by a moderator:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I don't think it is a problem. I just don't think that it is related - other than by timing - to the wage rises.
If this were true then US wages wouldn't have stagnated since the 70s/80s but rather would keep up with productivity no?
BANGS
Banned
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
Wages are but one measure. Wages have not kept up with inflation, but standards of living in general have skyrocketed since the then. People have larger homes, more quality clothing, mindblowing technology, etc. Even the poorest americans are walking around with iphones. This is the effect of businesses doing better as well. Wages are just one effect...
Vicetrailia
Banned
Ugh dude, the gains have mostly been going to the top. That's just the fact of the matter. There's more money than ever, and the gaps are wider than ever.
Americans walking around with iphones is the result of business strategy, globalization, cost reduction etc, but you don't substitute it for wages. You speak about them differently.
Last edited by a moderator:
BANGS
Banned
I never denied that nor implied it wasn't the case... We have hard data to prove it...
Are you implying that this somehow disproves my point that businesses doing better helps the average American? Because it doesn't...
Last edited:
Mahadev
Member
You are confusing technological progress with facts about poverty, inequality and stolen wages. No shit that poor AND rich people are better off than they were 100 years ago, that's what progress does. But the fact also is that the vast majority of the productivity gains thanks to that progress have been stolen by the rich while the poor continue to get screwed more and more, bankruptcies have become normal and the social safety net has almost completely eroded thanks to disgusting neoliberal polices the last few decades from both parties that are bought and paid for by the rich.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked