Maybe it is time to see the difference between fantasy and reality.
0 Replies
hightor
3
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 02:02 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
The Democrats liked it then.
I think they still like it — wasn't a big sum for border security in the DACA compromise that Trump wouldn't sign?
There's really nothing terrible about a fence on the border. I think the opposition is expressly to building a $20 billion boondoggle which would look oppressive, like the Israeli walls on the West Bank. There are effective forms of border security which don't require such a ponderous, unimaginative, and primitive response.
I think the opposition is expressly to building a $20 billion boondoggle
When did the Democrats care about spending money? It is out of character.
0 Replies
neptuneblue
1
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 05:01 pm
@oralloy,
Dude, relax.
oralloy wrote:
I say Obama is the biggest liar in recent history
neptuneblue wrote:
Trump: 103
In his first 10 months, Trump told nearly six times as many falsehoods as Obama did during his entire presidency.
Obama: 18
TIME SINCE INAUGURATION
You believe lying to the American people is irrelevant, and it's not. A pattern of deceitfulness by the president isn't something to ignore. It should be a red flag to you.
Just once, I'd like a Trumper to say, yeah, that ain't good, that needs to change. And that's it.
What's important is that Trump protects our civil liberties. He is doing a great job at that.
0 Replies
oralloy
-2
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 05:16 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Dick’s Sporting Goods will no longer sell assault-style rifles, high-capacity magazines or guns to people under the age of 21, according to chief executive Edward W. Stack.
Time to boycott them out of the gun business altogether.
Dec 13, 2018
Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE:DKS) shot itself in the foot when earlier this year it both banned the sale of modern sporting rifles (MSR) at its Field & Stream stores and prohibited adults under 21 from buying firearms. The backlash against the retailer was so great that double-digit comparable sales declines in hunting and related categories dragged down the performance of the entire company.
. . . .
While the general state of ill health in the firearms industry has masked just how deeply the policy mistakes are costing Dick's, we can see that the bad numbers are accelerating. Comparable sales were down 0.9% in the first quarter, 1.9% in the second, and 6.1% in the third. Even when accounting for the extra selling week in 2017, comps were down 2.5%, 4%, and 3.9%, respectively across 2018.
More telling is the double-digit declines experienced in the hunting category because customers who would have purchased firearms also would have bought other outdoor gear. CEO Ed Stack says the declines in hunting and hunting-related electronics were responsible for a 255-basis-point drop in comps in the most recent quarter.
Trump pulled out of a massive trade deal. Now 11 countries are going ahead without the US
katie lobosco circle cut
By Katie Lobosco, CNN
Updated 5:41 PM ET, Sat December 29, 2018
New York (CNN)A major 11-country agreement goes into effect Sunday, reshaping trade rules among economic powerhouses like Japan, Canada, Mexico and Australia — but the United States won't be a part of it.
That means that Welch's grape juice, Tyson's pork and California almonds will remain subject to tariffs in Japan, for example, while competitors' products from countries participating in the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will eventually be duty-free.
Japan will offer similar tariff relief to the European Union, in a separate trade deal set to go into effect on February 1.
"Our competitors in Australia and Canada will now benefit from those provisions, as US farmers watch helplessly," said US Wheat Associates President Vince Peterson at a hearing on the potential negotiations with Japan.
It's the opposite of what the Obama administration planned when it began negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP. The proposed deal, which never passed Congress, formed the backbone of the US strategy to counter Chinese economic influence, but it was one of the first things President Donald Trump moved to undo when he took office, pulling the United States out of the deal in January of 2017.
Instead, he's pursued a series of direct bilateral agreements, launching a trade war with escalating tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods to force Beijing to the negotiating table. The strategy has led to a new round of talks between Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping — but leaves US producers out of broader regional arrangements with other Pacific Rim nations, for now.
The current signatories have left open the possibility that the United States and other countries — including China — could join in the future if they agreed to the terms.
"They're trying to say, 'We're moving forward and we hope you come to your senses at some point and join us, too'," said Phil Levy, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs who served as a senior economist for trade under President George W. Bush.
Withdrawing from the TPP fulfilled a campaign pledge for Trump, who had called the agreement a "disaster" and argued that it would harm American workers and manufacturing.
He's also renegotiated the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, replacing it with a successor deal, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which still needs congressional approval before it can take effect. And the Trump administration is currently pursuing bilateral accords with the European Union as well as with Japan.
The stakes will be even higher now that the Trans-Pacific deal is going into effect — especially for American farmers who were eager to take advantage of more open markets abroad.
Tariffs will be phased out over a 15-year period under the CPTPP.
Tyson Foods and Welch's have both complained to the US Trade Representative's Office about how their products will be at a significant disadvantage around the world if no action is taken.
But amid rising concerns over intellectual property protection and cybercrime, the most important element of the CPTPP may be its new rules for digital trade. Some of which were included in Trump's renegotiated North America Free Trade Agreement, but won't apply to US trade beyond Mexico and Canada for now.
Creating a variety of standards through a number of bilateral and trilateral trade deals could wind up hurting small and mid-sized American companies that may find it costly to keep up with the differences.
"The TPP was meant to create harmonization," Levy said. "If you're a small guy, that helps you immensely."
He pulled out of that deal because it hurt American workers and would help global interests, which are not ours. Why do you losers want to give away what we have?
0 Replies
coldjoint
-1
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 07:37 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Damn right. I don't let fox news and the Donald do my thinking for me.
My thoughts are of our Constitution and our rich traditions. If Fox agrees, no sweat.
0 Replies
Builder
-1
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 10:08 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
It's the opposite of what the Obama administration planned when it began negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as TPP.
If the TPP was such a great deal, it wouldn't have taken almost a decade to get pushed through. A financial strategist requested the figures on just how it will benefit Australia's people, but no figures could be accessed. Whenever secrecy surrounds a deal of this magnitude, you can bet your bottom dollar it's not in the interests of the general public.
This "deal" is a globalist agenda issue, which is why globalists Obama and Clinton were all for it. Trump is correct to dismiss it out of hand, for the simple reason that it was drawn up by corporate criminals, to aid and abet corporate criminals.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of global issues, though.
Now we both know where you stand on globalism.
0 Replies
Builder
-2
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 10:23 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
You believe lying to the American people is irrelevant, and it's not.
You seem to have a problem differentiating between bragging and bald-faced lying that affects a whole nation of people, vis-a-vis Libya's illegal invasion, on supposed "humanitarian" grounds by Obama, who then blamed his SoS for lying him into the invasion, which is clearly a bald-faced lie, because the UK admin aided and abetted Obama's crime.
It's all about outcomes.
Name one lie made by Trump that has resulted in a nation going backwards a thousand years, to the days of slavery in the main street, after an era of prosperity and wealth for all the people.
This is what Obama's lie about Libya's illegal invasion resulted in. Lucky he had Clinton to blame for this, hey? She showed her true colours though.
Name one lie made by Trump that has resulted in a nation going backwards a thousand years, to the days of slavery in the main street, after an era of prosperity and wealth for all the people.
This is what Obama's lie about Libya's illegal invasion resulted in.
First, what invasion? Which country sent troops into Libya?
Second, what lie?
Third, assuming that you can demonstrate that there was an invasion, how exactly was it illegal?
Fourth, the world is a better place without Kadaffy in it. He deserved a worse death than he got. His death was a good thing.
You'll find all you need to know about it in that search.
0 Replies
Builder
-1
Sat 29 Dec, 2018 11:39 pm
@oralloy,
This link tells the tale. You might think bombing a nation on a pretense is an "intervention", but to the rest of the planet, it was an invasion, and a complete ******* disaster for the people the invasion was supposed to help.
Take all the time you need, to try and justify this mess.
President Trump has a well-documented problem telling the truth.
Fact checkers have compiled lists of all of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods since he took office (The Washington Post counts over 7,500, and The Toronto Star over 3,900), rounded up his most egregious whoppers in year-end lists and scrutinized his claims in real time with television chyrons.
Here at The New York Times, we have also fact-checked countless campaign rallies, news conferences, interviews and Twitter posts. After nearly two years of assessing the accuracy of Mr. Trump’s statements, we can draw some conclusions not just about the scale of the president’s mendacity, but also about how he uses inaccurate claims to advance his agenda, criticize the news media and celebrate his achievements.
Repetition and Inflation
Mr. Trump refuses to correct most of his inaccurate claims, instead asserting them over and over again. They become, by sheer force of repetition, “alternative facts” and staples of his campaign rallies and speeches.
Examples abound. He has falsely characterized the December 2017 tax cuts as the “largest” or the “biggest” in American history over 100 times (several others were larger). He has misleadingly said over 90 times that his promised wall along the southern border is being built (construction has not begunon any new section). He has falsely accused Democrats of supporting “open borders” over 60 times (Democratic lawmakers support border security, but not his border wall). And he has lobbed over 250 inaccurate attacks on the investigation into Russian election interference.
Yet Mr. Trump does not rely on repetition alone. He also embellishes talking points to amplify his achievements.
Take his repeated fabrication about the construction of new steel mills. After his administration announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in March, the president claimed in June that United States Steel was “opening six new plants.” A month later, the number rose to seven. He has also occasionally cited eight, possibly nine or a vague “many plants,” and he claimed once that plants were “opening up literally on a daily basis.” To date, United States Steel has yet to open or build one new plant, though the company has restarted idled components of some plants.
Mr. Trump often pairs his misleading claim that his border wall is being built with the statement that he received $1.6 billion from Congress to fund it — though a spending bill from March stipulated that the money, for border security, could not be used for the wall. In August, he added another $1.6 billion to the count, with no evidence. And despite criticizing a spending bill passed in September for not appropriating any money for the wall, Mr. Trump told campaign rally audiences in Illinois, Texas and Mississippi in October that his administration had secured a “third $1.6 billion.”
In some cases, true claims morph into false ones in Mr. Trump’s telling. In December 2017, he was largely accurate in saying a military spending law would give troops the largest raise in eight years. In March, he then exaggerated that time frame to “over a decade.” And in May, as he addressed Naval Academy graduates at Annapolis, Mr. Trump wrongly characterized the wage increase as not just the largest, but the “first in 10 years.”
Shifting and Deflecting
In the face of controversy or criticism, Mr. Trump has defended initial falsehoods with additional dubious claims.
This approach is evident in his shifting statements about the payment that Michael D. Cohen, his former lawyer, made to a pornographic film actress to keep her from speaking about their alleged affair. In April, Mr. Trump falsely denied knowing about the payment.
After the F.B.I. raided Mr. Cohen’s office, Mr. Trump acknowledged on Twitter in May that Mr. Cohen received reimbursement for the payment and asserted that it had nothing to do with his presidential campaign. Mr. Cohen would later tell prosecutors that he acted at Mr. Trump’s direction and to influence the election.
After the release of an audio recording of the two men discussing a hush-money payment to another woman, Mr. Trump claimed in an August interview on “Fox & Friends” that he did not know about the payments until “later on” and that Mr. Cohen “made the deals.” He then misleadingly compared Mr. Cohen’s actions — a willful violation of campaign finance law — to a civil infraction incurred by former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
By December, Mr. Trump’s defense had shifted further: “I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law.”
Misleading Vagueness and Fanciful Details
The president is known for being unscripted and loose with language, but he sometimes shows tactical restraint.
After Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court and in the days before the midterm elections, Mr. Trump told rallygoers in Missouri that “the accuser admitted she never met him, she never saw him, he never touched her, talked to her, he had nothing to do with her, she made up the story, it was false accusations.”
The omission of a name and the use of the words “the accuser” may give the misleading impression that Christine Blasey Ford, who testified to Congress that Justice Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers, had recanted her account. But in fact, Mr. Trump was referring to another little-known accuser named Judy Munro-Leighton, who recanted her claim of sexual assault.
Mr. Trump also regales his audience with elaborate stories. Some — like his tales of unnamed “strong” or “tough” men, miners or steelworkers crying and thanking him — may have occurred but are impossible to verify.
Others, like his frequent attacks on Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, contain invented details. Not content with just accurately pointing out that Mr. Blumenthal falsely claimed to have served in Vietnam, Mr. Trump adds — with no evidence — that Mr. Blumenthal said he had “charged up Da Nang,” dodged bullets and saved the lives of fellow soldiers.
Inventing Straw Men
The usual target of this particular strain of falsehoods is the news media, which Mr. Trump suggests purposely underestimates or misinterprets him.
Mr. Trump often lauds strong job growth under his watch and says that the “fake news” would have deemed such numbers “impossible” or “ridiculous” during the 2016 campaign. Yet he neglects to mention that the number of jobs added in the 22 months after his inauguration — 4.2 million — is lower than the 4.8 million jobs added in the 22 months before he took office, undermining the premise of his retrodiction.
In another example, Mr. Trump turned a hypothetical talking point first into a purported reality and then — after headlines debunking his claim appeared — into a joke that he implied reporters had failed to grasp.
At an October rally in Arizona, Mr. Trump criticized Democrats for allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. “Next thing you know, they’ll want to buy ’em a car,” he speculated. “Then they’ll say the car’s not good enough, we want — how about a Rolls-Royce?”
A day later, at a campaign rally in Nevada, Mr. Trump presented this theory as reality, telling supporters that Democrats wanted to give cars and licenses to undocumented immigrants in addition to free health care and education.
After the claim was debunkedby news outlets, Mr. Trump responded by ridiculing the news media for mentioning the Rolls-Royce, which was not the actual subject of the fact checks.
“They said he gets a Pinocchio for that,” Mr. Trump said to laughter at a campaign rally in Mississippi, referring to The Washington Post’s rating system for false claims. “They got me!”
