192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 12:26 pm
@ehBeth,
They still have Canada. Justin save the Kurds.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:50 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
So one thing is how do we deal with government “fake news” — if you want to call it that, but propaganda is a better phrase for it.

Yes it is. And reluctance to use that term (along with the failure to differentiate it from other terms such as "marketing" or "promotion") does a great disservice to everyone.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 01:59 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
does a great disservice to everyone.

That is a pretty good way to describe your posts. Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 02:01 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
So one thing is how do we deal with government “fake news” — if you want to call it that, but propaganda is a better phrase for it.

Yes it is. And reluctance to use that term (along with the failure to differentiate it from other terms such as "marketing" or "promotion") does a great disservice to everyone.

Marketing/promotion is business propaganda.

Political propaganda is political marketing/promotion.

Elections are rarely about anything besides propaganda.

It's sad that the government only questions it when it is explicitly associated with foreign interests.

Freedom of speech is good, but there is too little critical consciousness to sort out good speech from bad speech and dismiss the propaganda.

Also note that the most effective propaganda works by differentiating itself from propaganda and passing as valid information.

The propaganda industry has long since outsmarted the public it manipulates.

Orwell's 1984 was written in 1949 about a future that's already over 30 years ago.

After 2019 there will be more time elapsed since the year 1984 than there was time between Orwell's penning of 1984 and the year 1984.

How time flies when you're being tricked.
Builder
 
  -2  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:20 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
The propaganda industry has long since outsmarted the public it manipulates.


Operation Mockingbird. The CIA infiltration of the mass media to control the masses.

Mention it here, and the shills make out like it's a conspiracy, which tells me they're all over forums like this, and social media.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:36 pm
@coldjoint,
The country.has said repeatedly,we do NOT want the wall. Mexico will
Not pay for it. If trump wants the wall that badly,it's time for HIM.to put Some skin in the game. Let him out five billion of his own money in as a

Sign of goo!d Faith , not a loan but a flat payment for some of the wall as a sign of good faith and we will evaluate it. I
IF TRUMP PAYS FOR THE WALL OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET, TO AHEAD. NOT MEXICO., NOT THE U.S, TRUMP. Come on Donny PUt up or shut UP.
Olivier5
 
  5  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:41 pm
https://www.courrierinternational.com/sites/ci_master/files/styles/image_original_2048/public/assets/images/chappatte_2018-12-23-2914.jpg
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:42 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The country.has said repeatedly,we do NOT want the wall.

The majority did not want Obamacare, did that stop it?
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 03:44 pm
@Olivier5,
I bet they could care less why they are leaving. Would you like to leave a place where you could be killed?
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:00 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
The majority did not want Obamacare, did that stop it?


Not true:

Set the health care record straight: Republicans helped craft Obamacare
Ross K. Baker, Opinion columnist Published 4:40 p.m. ET Aug. 1, 2017 | Updated 7:49 p.m. ET Aug. 1, 2017

The Senate has rejected a measure to repeal parts of former President Barack Obama's health law, dealing a serious blow to President Donald Trump and the GOP agenda. The final vote was 51-49. (July 28) AP

A final vote isn't the whole story. It's like researching your ancestry and going no further back than your mother and father.

The day after she was one of three Republican senators to vote against her party's proposal to repeal chunks of the Affordable Care Act, Susan Collins of Maine posted a press release that said: "Democrats made a big mistake when they passed the ACA without a single Republican vote. I don't want to see Republicans make the same mistake."

It was a nice nod in the direction of bipartisanship. But it also perpetuates a deceptive narrative, repeated often by Republicans, that they were completely excluded from the process that resulted in Obamacare. While it is true that no Republican voted for the final bill, it is blatantly untrue that it contains no GOP DNA. In fact, to make such an assertion is like researching your ancestry and going no further back than your mother and father.

Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.

Let's set the record straight. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (known as the HELP Committee), chaired first by Edward Kennedy and later by Christopher Dodd, held 14 bipartisan round-table meetings and 13 public hearings. Democrats on that committee accepted 160 Republican amendments to the bill. The Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Montana Democrat Max Baucus, was writing its own version of the ACA. It held 17 bipartisan round-table sessions, summit meetings and hearings with Republican senators.

On the House side, the Republican leadership made it clear to members that they were not to cooperate in any way with the effort to create the health insurance program proposed by President Obama. McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, was equally disapproving of cooperation. Despite that, a few Republican senators, such as Finance Committee members Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming, were in discussions with the Democrats until McConnell warned both men that their future in the party would be in jeopardy if they supported the bill.

By the summer recess in August 2009, Republicans like Grassley were back in their states and hearing from the Tea Party movement that cooperating with Democrats on health care reform was akin to trading with the enemy. Nonetheless, a few Republicans such as Maine senator Olympia Snowe continued to work with Finance Committee Democrats. Remarkably, the bill before the committee was based on a plan devised by the Republicans more than a decade before — including now familiar elements of Obamacare such as the individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance, and state exchanges or marketplaces with plans offered by private insurers.

Cooperation with Republicans had the blessing of the highest Democratic authority. President Obama, seeking a "grand bargain" on health reform, conferred his benediction to continue discussions with any Republican senator willing to participate, but by the fall of 2009 it was clear that having the support of only one or two GOP senators would not be enough Republican DNA to support a plausible claim of bipartisanship. It was at this point that the work did move behind closed doors and into the leadership suite of Democratic leader Harry Reid.

It is always a mistake to infer from a vote on final passage of a bill in Congress that bipartisan cooperation was wholly absent from the process. You cannot assume that even a bill with no votes at all from the other party was not significantly influenced by the opposition at earlier stages in its development.

It may be politically useful for firing up your political base to accuse the other party of exclusionary tactics, but in most cases it just ain't so. Bipartisanship is encoded in much of the work that Congress does. Polarization is a much more compelling narrative, but it is rarely the whole story.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:39 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
Not true:

Quote:
March, finds that roughly as many Americans rate the law favorably (41 percent) as rate it unfavorably (40 percent), although over the last year they have typically found negative ratings exceeding positive ones by a few percentage points.

I said the majority. In the 40's is not a majority. True.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/obamacare-polls-affordable-care-act-health-care-reform_n_1380986.html
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:46 pm
@coldjoint,
Get a grip:

Public Approval Of Obamacare Hits Record High Ahead Of 2018 Midterms

By Alice Ollstein
March 1, 2018 9:28 am

A new tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds the highest ever public approval rating for the Affordable Care Act since the organization began asking the question in 2010. According to the survey, 54 percent of the public view the embattled law favorably, while 42 percent hold an unfavorable view. The major shift in public approval for the ACA since Trump took office and set about chipping away at the law has mostly been driven by independents, 55 percent of whom currently approve of Obamacare.

Furthermore, the survey found, health care is a top issue for voters headed into the 2018 midterm elections—particularly the rising cost of health care. Among registered voters in battlegrounds states, far more people said they wanted to hear candidates talk about health care costs than further attempts to repeal the ACA.

The findings are likely to motivate the health care advocacy groups planning to target Republican lawmakers in 2018 races for their vote to repeal the ACA’s mandate, which is set to raise health insurance premiums nearly 20 percent per year for people in Obamacare’s individual market.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have repeatedly proposed deep cuts to Medicaid, and pushed a bill that ultimately failed that would have phased out the federally subsidized expansion of the program that currently covers millions of Americans.

But a whopping 74 percent of Americans now hold a favorable view of Medicaid—including 40 percent who have a “very favorable” view—the KFF survey found. A majority of people across party lines say the program is “working well for most low-income people.”

Fueling that positive impression is increasingly familiarity with what Medicaid is and how it functions. A full 7o percent of Americans say they have had a direct experience with the federal health care program, having either enrolled in it themselves or through a family member.

As GOP-controlled states grapple with whether or not to expand Medicaid under the ACA, KFF’s poll found broad support for doing so in their survey. In the 18 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid, 56 percent of all residents, and nearly 40 percent of Republicans, support expansion.

The public is more divided on the question of work requirements for Medicaid, a policy Republican states are pursuing aggressively with encouragement from the Trump administration. Though proponents of the requirements argue that it will encourage people to find jobs, improving their economic and physical health, most people surveyed viewed the purpose of the new rules as cutting government spending.

The Trump administration has also given states a green light to impose lifetime limits on Medicaid—a program that for 50-plus years has offered subsidized insurance to low-income people for as long as they needed. KFF’s poll found that nearly 70 percent of the public opposes lifetime limits for Medicaid, including 64 percent of independents and 47 percent of Republicans.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 05:54 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
Public Approval Of Obamacare Hits Record High Ahead Of 2018 Midterms

Maybe for a New Year's resolution yours should be working on your comprehension problems. I said when the law was passed a majority of Americans did not approve. Anything from 2018 is irrelevant.
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 06:22 pm
@coldjoint,
Some reminders of life before Obamacare
THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD
JANUARY 22, 2017 01:45 PM,

As Republicans have begun dismantling the Affordable Care Act, they’ve been met with a backlash that might be surprising to some. It shouldn’t be.

Americans have, for quite a while, been clear about wanting to keep at least some of the benefits that Obamacare provides. Now, more Americans favor the law than oppose it, according to a new poll.

Why? It’s not just the benefits that most people know about – coverage for millions more Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions. It’s also because the Affordable Care Act has improved the insurance landscape in many, quieter ways.

That might be easy to forget after years of Republicans calling Obamacare a failure. So here’s a reminder of what life was like before the Affordable Care Act:

People thought the health care system was terrible: For years, even decades, before Obamacare, Americans wanted health care and insurance reform. By 2008, health care costs were skyrocketing and insurance plans seemed to cover less and less – and that was if you were lucky enough to afford coverage.

That’s why a vast majority of Americans – including 82 percent in one 2008 poll – wanted the health care system to be overhauled.

Premiums were going up rapidly: Between 2000 and 2010, average family premiums for employer coverage grew 8 percent per year – a perpetual burden on Americans’ budgets. From 2010 to 2016, that same average has grown at a slower 5 percent a year.

Hundreds of thousands of people were afraid to change jobs: It’s a phenomenon called “job lock” – people being afraid to leave their corporate jobs and go out on their own because doing so meant walking away from affordable premiums. For some, the risk was even greater; if you had a pre-existing condition, insurance companies could refuse to sell you coverage. No longer.

Women got fewer mammograms: According to a study published this month in the journal Cancer, more women of all income and education levels got screened for breast cancer once Obamacare eliminated the out-of-pocket costs for the test. While there’s no way to know for sure if the ACA was the reason behind the increase (colonoscopy screenings did not see a similar rise), it makes sense that removing the financial barrier for cancer screenings and flu shots would result in more preventive care – and a healthier, less-costly population.

Women paid more than men: Before Obamacare, women buying insurance on the individual market were often charged more than men. The practice was known as “gender rating.” The ACA made that illegal.

There were more hospital mistakes: After Obamacare offered incentives for hospitals to avoid readmissions and harm to patients, hospital readmissions for Medicare beneficiaries dropped 8 percent. That translates into 565,000 fewer readmissions, according the Department of Health and Human Services.

Obamacare has brought other benefits for Americans, such as lowering prescription drug costs for some, and putting an end to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Is the ACA perfect? Far from it. But as Republicans float various ways to replace it, they’re finding that Americans’ memories are getting clearer. Obamacare is not a failure. It’s an improvement.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 06:24 pm
Quote:
The idea of a concrete wall on the US-Mexico border was dropped early in Donald Trump's presidency, his outgoing chief of staff John Kelly says.

Mr Trump made the idea of a solid wall on the border a key pledge from the start of his presidential campaign in 2015.

But by saying the idea of a concrete wall was dismissed long ago, Mr Kelly appeared to contradict the president.

Mr Trump has tweeted the term "wall" 59 times this month alone.

Mr Kelly will leave the White House on Wednesday after 17 months.

Before leaving, he gave a rare interview to the LA Times, published on Sunday, in which he called the role a "bone-crushing hard job".

"To be honest, it's not a wall," Mr Kelly said, when asked about plans for the border.

The former Marine Corps general was initially appointed as Mr Trump's homeland security secretary before becoming chief of staff in July 2017.

As soon as he did so, he told the LA Times, he sought advice from those who "actually secure the border".

"They said, 'Well, we need a physical barrier in certain places, we need technology across the board, and we need more people,'" he said.

"The president still says 'wall' - oftentimes frankly he'll say 'barrier' or 'fencing,' now he's tended toward steel slats. But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration, when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it."

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall."

These were the words Mr Trump spoke on 16 June 2015 as he launched his presidential campaign. At the same time, he said Mexican "rapists" and drug dealers were entering the US.

In the early months of his campaign, he attacked rival Jeb Bush for calling his proposal a "fence".


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46717985
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 06:36 pm
Quote:
Time to Remember the Forgotten Jihadist Beheader in Oklahoma Now Cleared for Execution

December 31, 2018

Quote:
Right after the attack, for instance, police asked a very calm and collected Nolen if anyone told him to behead unbelievers. He responded that the Qur'an gave him the idea. (Qur’an 47:4 states that "When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks.) Nolen answered: "Uh, no. I read the Qur'an. Like I say, the Qur'an is easy to understand. No one guides me but Allah."

When asked why he beheaded Hufford, he answered: "I just feel like...I did what I needed to do. What Allah says in the Qur'an to do. Oppressors don't need to be here. You know the Muslim is somebody who submits their will to Allah...Whatever he wants done, that's what we do...And you know he wants us to get the oppressors out of this place."

When asked if he regretted murdering Hufford, Nolen answered: "There wasn't nothing but a trial for me. I passed it because, like I said, I felt oppressed. I knew for sure that, if I was to die right then, I was going to heaven." He added: "I feel, you know, you know what I'm saying, if I was to die in five or 10 minutes, I'm going to heaven. That's all that matters to me."

Nolen also confirmed that he screamed “Allahu akbar” as he beheaded Hufford.

The Koran was his inspiration. Islam. Do you understand freedom of religion and what Islam and that freedom entails? Time to confront it.
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/time-to-remember-the-forgotten-jihadist-beheader-i#.XCqB8QXMiTs.twitter
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 06:43 pm
Chief Pentagon spokeswoman announces departure
By Barbara Starr and Zachary Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN)Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White is leaving her post, a move that coincides with Secretary of Defense James Mattis stepping down but also comes amid an internal Defense Department investigation into her conduct.

"I appreciate the opportunity afforded to me by this administration to serve alongside Secretary Mattis, our Service members and all the civilians who support them," White tweeted Monday. "It has been my honor and privilege. Stay safe and God bless."

White also sent a farewell message to Defense Department public affairs personnel Monday.

"It is with a heavy heart that I have submitted my letter of resignation to Secretary Mattis. I am grateful to the administration for giving me the opportunity to serve alongside Secretary Mattis, the brave men and women in uniform, and all of the civilians who support them," the message read, according to a copy obtained by CNN.

On Tuesday, Charles Summers Jr., a principal deputy assistant to the secretary of defense in White's office, will assume the role of acting assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs, according to the Pentagon.
Exclusive: Pentagon spokeswoman under investigation for misusing staff, retaliating against complaints

White's departure comes as the department's inspector general investigates allegations of retaliation against staff members after she used some of them to conduct her personal errands and business matters.

In August, CNN reported that White, a Trump administration political appointee, was under investigation by the inspector general after multiple complaints were filed against her.

White is alleged to have misused support staff, asking them to fetch her dry cleaning, run to the pharmacy for her and work on her mortgage paperwork, among other things. Staffers also accused White of inappropriately transferring personnel after they filed complaints about her.

White became the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman in April 2017 and reported directly to Mattis. The defense secretary's last day at the Pentagon also was Monday.

White used to hold regular televised press briefings, but has not appeared in one since May. It is not clear if her absence from briefings is related to the investigation. Reporters have been told the White House wanted to see more briefings by senior uniformed officers.

After a months-long pause in on-camera briefings, Mattis selected Burke Whitman, a two-star major general in the Marine Corps, to act as a uniformed spokesman for the Defense Department.

While White remained in her role up until Monday's announcement, the expectation was that Whitman would replace her as the Pentagon's regular on-camera briefer.

The decision to appoint Whitman was controversial because the military is supposed to remain outside the political arena, and with a member of the military acting as spokesperson, reporters will not be able to ask questions about the political aspects of decision-making.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 07:25 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
White is alleged to have misused support staff, asking them to fetch her dry cleaning, run to the pharmacy for her and work on her mortgage paperwork, among other things. Staffers also accused White of inappropriately transferring personnel after they filed complaints about her.

Let's waterboard her, who cares?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 09:13 pm
Federal Employees work for the Federal Government and are not to be used to fetch drycleaning or lobby for a poltical appointee’s spouse to get a fried chicken franchise. Its called misappropriation, its grounds for dismissal.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Mon 31 Dec, 2018 09:19 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Federal Employees work for the Federal Government and are not to be used to fetch drycleaning or lobby for a poltical appointee’s spouse to get a fried chicken franchise. Its called misappropriation, its grounds for dismissal.

Oh My! Trump should be impeached for appointing her. Again who cares, fire her.
 

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 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 10:01:28