192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 08:48 am
@georgeob1,
God only knows how many of these left-wing reporters pretend that they have standing to dictate what Trump should and shouldn't say when and where.

How many times I have seen this fools say: "In his inaugural address he should have said".....

Listening to them, you'd think THEY were the ones elected Pres. by the way they try to impress you with their authority over such questions, eh?

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 08:59 am
Sean Spicer before his current role as spokesman for the WH

Quote:
So Priebus’s RNC ended up a valuable ally to Trump’s team. That included Spicer, who became a tireless advocate for Trump in the press. When the plagiarism of Michelle Obama in Melania Trump’s convention speech was discovered, Spicer absurdly argued that it may not have been plagiarism because My Little Pony used somewhat similar wording too.

And when Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comments leaked and Spicer was asked whether they described sexual assault, he told a reporter, “I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.” He subsequently denied ever saying this, but his comment turned out to be on tape
vox
Just the perfect sort of guy for the job.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:04 am
@blatham,
Francis Fukuyama, an Historisan of some note published a paper entitled the "End of history' in the early 1990 s after the fall of the USSR, and later a larger book on the same theme. A former self-styled neo conservative he appears to havew undergone severasl transitions, each time proclaiming a new reality for the rest of us. Enough said.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:07 am
@georgeob1,
How did I know that would be exactly your response.

By the way, I noted yesterday that my book should arrive this week and inquired as to how your book shopping is going.
layman
 
  -3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:08 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

And when Trump’s “grab ’em by the pussy” comments leaked and Spicer was asked whether they described sexual assault, he told a reporter, “I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer.”


Proving that he's not a presumptous blowhard like you, eh?

As a legal matter, this would not be an "assault."

It wouldn't even be "battery" if the women in question did not consider it to be "offensive," which a lot of them probably wouldn't.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:13 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

blatham wrote:

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood.


Not surprising that you BOLD a reporter's unwarranted opinion, rather than the facts actually reported in the story, eh, Blathy. In fact, the story dispels his characterization as a "rank falsehood."

Quote:
As for Aetna’s claimed rationale for withdrawing from all but four states, Bates [the judge] accepted that the company could credibly call it a “business decision,” since the overall exchange business was losing money; he just didn’t buy that that was its sole reason. He observed that the failings in the marketplace existed before Aetna decided to withdraw...


You don't traffic in facts. You simply promote opinions (that you want others to adopt) as "fact."


I think that should be emphasized for all the readers.
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:23 am
He's a sociopath but they love him at FOX
Quote:
Newt Gingrich has a new proposal for the Trump administration’s efforts to delegitimize and weaken critical journalists: turn White House press briefings into a “town hall” format where presumably hand-picked citizens would join the “total left-wing propagandists” in the press corps, while banning the most critical reporters from asking questions.

Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, Fox News contributor, and sometime adviser to President Donald Trump, has urged the new administration to use the power of the White House to shatter the credibility and influence of the press. He previously said the administration should respond to critical coverage from CNN by blackballing a reporter for months and including more “courteous,” less “adversarial” journalists from local outlets, in addition to “propaganda organizations” like CNN and The New York Times.

During a January 23 interview on Fox & Friends, Gingrich suggested moving the briefings to a “larger auditorium” in order to allow “one-fourth or one-half of the people at the press conference to be citizens.” “Are you suggesting that it’s kind of like a town hall with some journalists in it?” responded co-host Steve Doocy. “Sure,” Gingrich replied.
MM
Aren't those splendid ideas in a democracy? Sure they are. Also, let's definitely see a continuation of Trump bringing a cheering squad along (or just dropping them covertly into that townhall thing).

Alternate splendid ideas:
1) Keep the press briefings as they are in format but only permit entry to "fair" journalists
2) Determine the six worst offenders in the press and break their legs (use black men from the inner cities for bonus points)
3) Send a Wall Of Meat into the press building to destroy the printing presses and computers
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:28 am
@McGentrix,
Once again, here's the link to the reporting on Aetna including the judge's findings. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Go read and see who has this described accurately.
layman
 
  -2  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:31 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Once again, here's the link to the reporting on Aetna including the judge's findings. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Go read and see who has this described accurately.


Why don't you try that, Blathy? Your link is precisely where the excerpt I posted came from.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:46 am
@blatham,
Aetna, a large insurer participating in the ACA, wanted to buy Humana, another insurance company. It wanted to do this to expand its offerings to more states. The Government intervened and sued Aetna to stop the "merger". As a result, Aetna did not have the market share to expand so decided to take its ball and go home bailing out of the ACA.

I fail to see what the issue is and why it's important. The ACA was doomed from the start. Aetna, a private company, tried to use leverage to expand its business (which is something that happens every day).

I found this last bit a tad annoying
Quote:
If there’s a saving grace in this episode, it’s that the company’s goal to protect the merger hasn’t worked, so far. The DOJ brought suit, and Bates has now thrown a wrench into the plan. Aetna has said it’s considering an appeal, but the merger is plainly in trouble, as it should be.


I didn't realize that Hiltlik's opinion really mattered, but I bet is sure influenced his opinion in how this was reported.
maporsche
 
  3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:49 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Has it occurred to you that you are becoming a bit monotonous and reptitious.


No, he's not.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 09:53 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
The ACA was doomed from the start.

That's a "message", not a fact.

As to the other, Aetna's purposeful moves to not leave an incriminating paper trail revealing what they were up to and their other moves to falsely describe their real motivations ought to alert you to why the judge found as he did. Anyway, let folks read and make up their own minds.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 10:20 am
Make Black Lung Great Again!

Quote:
Obamacare Repeal Threatens A Health Benefit Popular In Coal Country

...The Affordable Care Act includes special provisions that make the process of getting black lung benefits easier for coal miners. If the ACA is repealed, gaining these benefits could become much more difficult, effectively harming a group of people that President Trump has promised to protect.

Debbie Wills coordinates the black lung program for Valley Health primary care system. She says that prior to the ACA, it was almost impossible to qualify for the compensation benefits. Coal companies pay the benefits, and also pay into a federal trust fund that pays when coal companies can't. Wills says the process of getting benefits was arduous for miners.

"Coal company lawyers would doctor shop around the country and find two, three, four, five, seven doctors to say, 'Yes this miner is disabled, but it's not because of black lung,'" she says.
NPR
Just one of the very many potential consequences for real folks who might well have voted for Trump thinking he cares.
layman
 
  0  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 10:37 am
It's nothing complicated. You don't have to be a genius to understand and approve of Trump. All ya gotta know is....

America First, Baby!
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 10:43 am
Trump put a freeze on all hiring and promotion of federal employees, with one exception:

The military.

This was done in conjunction with the circulation of an oath of allegiance (to Trump, personally) being distributed for every member of the armed forces to sign.

Last chance to head to Canada, cheese-eaters.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 10:59 am
Jay Rosen has a brilliant piece up now at Pressthink. You folks really ought to read this. The immediate subject was Spicer's first "briefing". Rosen suggest there are three discernible aspects to what happened there. The second is very important to grasp:

Quote:
First, it told staffers who work for Trump: this is what we expect. If The Leader is reeling from a narcissistic wound (crowd figures too small) you will be expected to sacrifice dignity and best practice to redress that wound. That’s what you bought into when you agreed to work for President Trump. This is a stark statement. No wonder Spicer sounded tense.

A second message was to the press. You will be turned into hate objects whenever we feel like it. We can do that to you without providing right of reply because… what are you going to do about it? Small mistakes quickly corrected will be treated as evidence of malicious wrong doing by the entire group. (And you deserve that.) We are not bound by what you call facts. We have our own, and we will proceed to put them out regardless of what the evidence says. It’s not a problem for us if you stagger from the room in disbelief. We’re not trying to “win the news cycle,” or win you over. We’re trying to demonstrate independence from and power over you people. This room is not just for briefings, announcements and Q & A. It’s also a theater of resentment in which you play a crucial part. Our constituency hates your guts; this is the place where we commune with them around that fact. See you tomorrow, guys!

The third aspect itself has three parts. Do read this.
http://pressthink.org/2017/01/send-the-interns/
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 11:11 am
@blatham,
I read a great many books, magazines, newspapers, on-line blogs & reference sources and even an occasional dirty pamphlet I keep in my sock drawer. I also listen to my car radio and watch my TV.

As with many people I take all of this information in, assess it, ruminate over it, synthesize it and store it various mental sock drawers.

If I were writing a scholarly book or paper, and not hammering out a response in an internet discussion forum, I would certainly honor traditional scholarship and provide relevant footnotes and a bibliography, but...

Generally speaking, when I address factual issues like the assaults of Wilson & FDR on American liberties I often will confirm or hone my understanding of specific instances by consulting on-line references. As I don't want to spend hours researching any topic for A2K, I rely, perhaps overly so, on Google to point me in the right direction. Frequently that direction leads me to Wikipedia.

When I first discovered Wikipedia, I had an admittedly condescending and skeptical attitude about it. Over the years I came to find my condescension was (as it is 99.99% of the time) unwarranted. Not quite the same with skepticism. While I have found less examples of bias than I first expected, it exists but usually in such a blatant fashion that it's easy to identify (Of course this widely opens the door to the distinct possibility that I have been taken in by more artful applications of bias, but show me any reference source that is totally free of the influence of bias, and life is too short double and triple check every reference for a discussion forum).

The great thing about Google and Wikipedia is that if one finds reason for skepticism about something written in Wikipedia, one need only hit the back button for a list of alternative sources. Of course this, in turn, raises the issue of people shopping for the "facts" they like, but at some point we all form an opinion on the integrity of fellow participants here as well as the extent of their individual myopia. As for the latter, I'm informed in this regard by the sources the individual most often cites. Personally, for this reason, if I find something in National Review or American Conservative that I want to reference in a post, I search for confirmation in sources like the NY Times, Washington Post, New Yorker etc. This serves two purposes: 1) If I can't find at least roughly confirming reports in "alternative" sources, I seriously question the original and 2) I find it more effective to use the NY Times or Atlantic to support my contentions here than FOX or the Weekly Standard - at the very least it eliminates a few responses like "Well of course you'd find that in that Right Wing rag!"

(I once was able to cite "Mother Jones" to support a contention on Frankenfood. That was the A2K equivalent of winning The Masters. Smile )

I've expressed my understanding of progressivism and my opinion of progressives. When I copy and paste, I try to remember to include attribution and provide relevant links. I'm too conceited to intentionally plagiarize, but if someone thinks I have, they should point it out. It's not a practice that I find to be trivial, even here in a discussion forum.

If you believe that I am partially or completely off the mark in terms of my understanding of either the substance or history of progressivism make yourself clear. You only should provide the scholarship you demand or expect from others.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 11:13 am
@blatham,
It's already a failed presidency. This idiot doesn't understand our Constitution, and the free press.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 11:29 am
@blatham,
Have you looked into the many coal mines now operating in Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC? From what I have read the situation there is hardly different from that in Appalachia and Wyoming in the United States. Or alternatively are you concerned about such thing only as they exist in our country?
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 24 Jan, 2017 11:34 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
That's a fine post, my man. I'll get back to you on the progressive thing.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 07/11/2025 at 10:36:13