192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 06:28 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:
By the way, tag abuse has ended. People can only add tags to their own threads now.

That prevents people from adding helpful tags to threads, but it also eliminates the name-calling tags.

Judging on his own tagging history, I'm not sure nononono will be particularly happy to hear this..



Going to get a cow bell and follow them around shouting "SHAME!" next? What was the point of your post Nimh?
nimh
 
  5  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 08:02 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Going to get a cow bell and follow them around shouting "SHAME!" next? What was the point of your post Nimh?

Just found it amusing that Oralloy was earnestly reassuring this person that tag abuse was solved now, when a quick click showed they were among the worst abusers themselves.

And sure, calling out what seems pretty glaringly bad behaviour - why not?

What was the point of yours?
nononono
 
  -4  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 08:47 pm
@nimh,
before I was banned for over 2 years, literally every single time I created a new topic, izzy, and other idiotic liberal imbeciles would tag my new topic with nonsense like "Let's legalize rape." So I responded in kind.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 08:49 pm
Quote:
WASHINGTON — With global markets shaken by President Donald Trump's surprise decision to impose strict tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president went into battle mode on Friday: "Trade wars are good, and easy to win," he wrote on Twitter.

But the public show of confidence belies the fact that Trump's policy maneuver, which may ultimately harm U.S. companies and American consumers, was announced without any internal review by government lawyers or his own staff, according to a review of an internal White House document.

According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

On Wednesday evening, the president became "unglued," in the words of one official familiar with the president's state of mind.

A trifecta of events had set him off in a way that two officials said they had not seen before: Hope Hicks' testimony to lawmakers investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, conduct by his embattled attorney general and the treatment of his son-in-law by his chief of staff.

Trump, the two officials said, was angry and gunning for a fight, and he chose a trade war, spurred on by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the White House director for trade — and against longstanding advice from his economic chair Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

Ross had already invited steel and aluminum executives to the White House for an 11 a.m. meeting on Thursday. But Ross, according to a person with direct knowledge, hadn't told the White House who the executives were. As a result, White House officials were unable to conduct a background check on the executives to make sure they were appropriate for the president to meet with and they were not able to be cleared for entry by secret service. According to a person with direct knowledge, even White House chief of staff John Kelly was unaware of their names.

By midnight Wednesday, less than 12 hours before the executives were expected to arrive, no one on the president's team had prepared any position paper for an announcement on tariff policy, the official said. In fact, according to the official, the White House counsel's office had advised that they were as much as two weeks away from being able to complete a legal review on steel tariffs.

In response to NBC News, another White House official said that the communications team "was well-prepared to support the president's announcement" and that "many of the attendees had been in the White House before and had already been vetted for attendance at a presidential event." A different official said of the decision, "everyone in the world has known where the president's head was on this issue since the beginning of his administration."

There were no prepared, approved remarks for the president to give at the planned meeting, there was no diplomatic strategy for how to alert foreign trade partners, there was no legislative strategy in place for informing Congress and no agreed upon communications plan beyond an email cobbled together by Ross's team at the Commerce Department late Wednesday that had not been approved by the White House.

No one at the State Department, the Treasury Department or the Defense Department had been told that a new policy was about to be announced or given an opportunity to weigh in in advance.

The Thursday morning meeting did not originally appear on the president's public schedule. Shortly after it began, reporters were told that Ross had convened a "listening" session at the White House with 15 executives from the steel and aluminum industry.

Then, an hour later, in an another unexpected move, reporters were invited to the Cabinet room. Without warning, Trump announced on the spot that he was imposing new strict tariffs on imports.

By Thursday afternoon, the U.S. stock market had fallen and Trump, surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office, was said to be furious.



nbc news
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
nononono
 
  -1  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 08:54 pm
@nimh,
Because the thing is, it's easy to figure out who's right and wrong in an argument. The person with facts to back their assertions just needs to state those facts. Truth speaks for itself.

On the other hand, the person spewing bullshit will do everything possible to silence the person stating facts that they disagree with. They do this because they know they're wrong.

So if you're on the fence about an issue, ask yourself who's being silenced in this situation and not being allowed to speak. 98% of the time it's red pilled men and conservatives.
Setanta
 
  4  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:06 pm
@nononono,
I'd be interested to know how anyone here is silenced. Banning comes from name-calling and personally abusive characterizations of other members. People are not banned because they express political opinions that are odious to the membership--that's an old dodge used around here by some of the loudest members. If you don't call names, and you don't characterize people in an insulting manner, you will not be "silenced."
nononono
 
  -4  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:12 pm
@Setanta,
I was literally banned for posting conservative threads and red pilled talking points. I even have personal messages confirming that. Yet people like izzy are allowed to "call names" all they want and nothing happens.

And by the way, I couldn't care less who "calls names" and gets their precious, delicate feelings hurt. Are we adults here???

Last time I checked there weren't a lot of toddlers here sucking their thumbs ...I mean except all the people who voted for Hillary and the feminists that is.
nimh
 
  9  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:15 pm
@McGentrix,
So you thought that me feeling the need to call out someone's bad behaviour was... bad behaviour... which you felt the need to call me out on.

I'll send you your EU passport in the mail then? :-)
nononono
 
  -2  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:19 pm
@Setanta,
the admins here are all leftist/Marxists. Factual talking points that they disagree with are labeled "abusive" or "name calling" because they don't jive with the leftist/feminist dogma. Just like how the big tech companies silence people like James Damore who state scientific fact like how women and men are different.

Anything and everything is equivocated to "name calling" if liberals don't like it. Yet they can "name call" all they want! Deplorables anyone?

If liberals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all!
oralloy
 
  1  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:27 pm
@nononono,
nononono wrote:
I was literally banned for posting conservative threads and red pilled talking points.

I don't know officially, but I suspect what happened was some of your posts linking to conservative websites were removed for being a bit too spam-like, and then you repeatedly reposted the same thing each time the moderators removed it until they got mad and suspended you.


nononono wrote:
And by the way, I couldn't care less who "calls names" and gets their precious, delicate feelings hurt. Are we adults here???

The moderators have a stronger policy against name-calling now. They tolerate it much less than they did before. Under the current rules it is usually a lot better to report name-calling to the moderators than to retaliate in kind.
oralloy
 
  0  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:28 pm
@oralloy,
I just looked at the post count. Sometime in the next few weeks someone is going to make post number 6,666,666.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  7  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:34 pm
@nononono,
I can tell you’re going to be like a flash bang here. Loud, blinding, and gone quickly.
nononono
 
  -1  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:41 pm
@oralloy,
They suspended me for YEARS oralloy. And not years total from separate bannings, over two years in one solitary ban! Don't you think that's a bit much?
Who else have they done that to? And don't forget back when I used to argue with people like firefly about feminism all the time and my posts got removed. No matter how plainly I laid out logical arguments against feminists, they'd get removed. This site, like most platforms has an undeniable liberal bias.
nononono
 
  -2  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:42 pm
@maporsche,
couldn't care less, I hate this site.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:50 pm
@nononono,
nononono wrote:
Yet people like izzy are allowed to "call names" all they want and nothing happens.

Pretty sure Izzy's more colourful posts disappear regularly, and that he's had his own occasional absences from the forum.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:52 pm
@nononono,
That just skirts the edge of abusive posting, and is tarring everyone here who disagrees with you with the same brush. As has been pointed out, you are not likely to last very long here. But hey, you hate this place, right? Why would you care?

If you hate it, why did you come back?
nononono
 
  -3  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:53 pm
@oralloy,
jespa, one of the admins here even posted private information about me in one of the threads before I got banned if I remember correctly.

This site is a joke, one of the most unprofessional places on the internet.
Below viewing threshold (view)
nononono
 
  -3  
Fri 2 Mar, 2018 09:59 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
That just skirts the edge of abusive posting, and is tarring everyone here who disagrees with you with the same brush.


Making a statement that someone else doesn't like does not equate to "abuse".

Just like how if a woman has sex when she's drunk, and then feels ashamed of herself because she realizes she's a slut the next day and regrets it, guess what? That's not rape!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.82 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:01:07