American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[Swift]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

That reminds me of the old joke. The American that comes to live in Canada and is talking to his buddy back in the States 'You wont believe this, on the news up here, they report on EVERY murder'

Exactly. Some of the terrorist attacks do go unreported, but coverage of gun violence in the US is practically non-existent outside of the immediate location. You won't hear them mention that, because they're more interested in peddling the anti-Muslim fear rather than touching gun control in the slightest.

Just today alone, 27 people were shot dead in the US (there's still an hour and a bit left in the day, so that could rise) - http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/re...-of-gun-deaths

[wwkayaker]

That gun violence site now shows 29. What a disgrace.

[driveway]

Yemen raid missed its primary target.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7566211.html

President Trump ordered his first military raid on January 29 with one secret objective—to capture or kill an al Qaeda leader and recruiter who ultimately survived the strike ... 38-year-old Qassim al-Rimi, who leads al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and is considered the third most dangerous terrorist in the world.

On Sunday, al-Rimi released an audio message taunting the president.

"The fool of the White House got slapped at the beginning of his road in your lands," he said in the message, military sources confirmed to NBC that the message is authentic.

[DuffMan]

Trump is a narcissistic mentally unstable liar.
It's funny to read people trying to defend him.
He deserves all of the crap he gets.

[ernie]

So let me get this straight....

To prove their "point" on all sorts of terrorist attacks happened they construct a list of a mere 78 crimes over 2+ years WORLDWIDE many of which people already knew about?

That will probably get his base riled up I suppose but anyone with even a general idea of math and probability will see that it is a tiny list and would make one wonder why sooooo much time is being spent on this.

Oh that's right because his inner sanctum got caught in a massive whopper of a lie that they first tried to pass off as a slip of the tongue only to have it come out it had been said before in a different interview a few days earlier. So now in the ever present absolute need to be "right" they do this. It's wearing thin on people. Meanwhile, Congress and the Senate being completely controlled by the GOP still work at a snails pace with no prepared legislation ready to go.... For a party so desperate for power they sure are woefully unprepared from the president on down.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by driveway

Yemen raid missed its primary target.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7566211.html

Unfortunately, at least one American has already died as a result of Trump's desire to get into a d*** measuring contest. One can only wonder how many more will end up dying.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

What stands out more for me is what they've included on their list.

They are literally including knife attacks by unknown assailants on their list of terror attacks! Knivings don't even make the local news in most US cities.

True.

I am not going to fact check them all, but there is not nearly enough information there to know what the motive were for all those attacks either.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Curiously there is one country notably absent from the list: Israel. Considering they put random knife attacks on there, and considering Israel is the target of those all the time, bit odd to leave them out. President Bannon's antisemitism is probably clashing with the anti-Islamist element of the White House, which should set up some interesting times ahead.

Obligatory "Imagine the GOP meltdown if Obama released a terror attack list without Israel on it"

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

People are "allowed" to say what they want and in turn have those opinions challenged.

Of course, people can say whatever they want. But they aren't going to convince the non-haters when they spew opinion without backing it up. I am just asking for a little evidence now and then.

This is a discussion board, and if someone came out and said "hey I have it on good authority that Player X requested a trade" we'd all be giving that poster crap for hearing it at the Orange Julius stand.

I'm giving equal weight to those posters who claim Trump is mentally unbalanced or is dumb until they can provide evidence. In some cases, posters do provide some out-of-context, 10 year old articles, which I have said I will give some weight to.

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

But saying that people hate Trump because is is "the thing to do" is one of more ignorant things I've read in this thread. Which says a lot.

You don't think people are persuaded by popular media, which echos their same opinion, to become more bold about their opinion? I think the fact that Trump's in the media so much, and most of the "popular" media is against his presidency (I'd argue for political reasons), has great deal to do with many people's opinions.

There are a couple posters in this thread who are saying far more ignorant things AGAINST Trump, for which I am asking them to back it up, and yet you don't call them out for being ignorant? Maybe because they share your opinion on Trump?

[DuffMan]

Hey REDVAN, quick question, Do you know who Trump is? It seems you are unfamiliar with 9/10 of anything Trump has said.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2957688
warning, auto play video at link.

So if it is a matter of public record that a psychotherapist has said Trump is mentally ill, are we not allowed to us that as a a description for him? You can Google it yourself, their are plenty of experts weighing in on his mental stability, and I gotta say, it isn't good. Wait, can I say that? Please let me know if I can say that, grand arbiter of the Trump thread.

Thanks for providing this article.

I think this is the same list of 9 that Duffman posted a few pages back (without any link or context).

It is very interesting, and I do agree with them that Trump hits 8 (I could make a point for all 9 actually.) I wonder how many of those 9 narcissistic personality traits Bush and Reagan had too? I'm betting at least 6/7.

As for the bold. Sorry I guess saying "allowed" was not very prudent. I was on my phone and typing a quick reply, if it matters. I just appreciate when some of the Trump bashing comes along with links.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Hey REDVAN, quick question, Do you know who Trump is? It seems you are unfamiliar with 9/10 of anything Trump has said.

What do you mean do I know who he is?

I don't read every tweet and every article about him, no. I am trying to stay on top of current events and I read what I can find when I have time. Not sure what you're getting at.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Of course, people can say whatever they want. But they aren't going to convince the non-haters when they spew opinion without backing it up. I am just asking for a little evidence now and then.

This is a discussion board, and if someone came out and said "hey I have it on good authority that Player X requested a trade" we'd all be giving that poster crap for hearing it at the Orange Julius stand.

I'm giving equal weight to those posters who claim Trump is mentally unbalanced or is dumb until they can provide evidence. In some cases, posters do provide some out-of-context, 10 year old articles, which I have said I will give some weight to.



You don't think people are persuaded by popular media, which echos their same opinion, to become more bold about their opinion? I think the fact that Trump's in the media so much, and most of the "popular" media is against his presidency (I'd argue for political reasons), has great deal to do with many people's opinions.

There are a couple posters in this thread who are saying far more ignorant things AGAINST Trump, for which I am asking them to back it up, and yet you don't call them out for being ignorant? Maybe because they share your opinion on Trump?

The reason you are getting a hard time on this is it seems that every time you say that we shouldn't be saying something that isn't true, it is in fact true, and we all know it so we don't bother sourcing. Perhaps a better way for you to handle this would be when you see a statement that appears outlandish, do a quick Google search yourself before calling people on it. You might just find that we are right, or if we are wrong you can prove it, rather than just telling us not to say stuff that is most likely fact.

[DuffMan]

I read REDVANs posts in a Sean Spicer voice now, PERIOD.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The reason you are getting a hard time on this is it seems that every time you say that we shouldn't be saying something that isn't true, it is in fact true, and we all know it so we don't bother sourcing. Perhaps a better way for you to handle this would be when you see a statement that appears outlandish, do a quick Google search yourself before calling people on it. You might just find that we are right, or if we are wrong you can prove it, rather than just telling us not to say stuff that is most likely fact.

Fair enough, maybe this is what Duffman means too with his question above.

[PepsiFree]

This is now the "REDVAN doesn't read the news so everybody catch him up on the last ten years before you talk about Trump" thread.

Quick idea: if you want to see why someone is saying something, and you're wondering if it's true, use this amazing resource instead of needing to be spoon-fed.

[Senator Clay Davis]

First Family of Grifting

A lawyer for first lady Melania Trump argued in a lawsuit filed Monday that an article falsely alleging she once worked for an escort service hurt her chance to establish “multimillion dollar business relationships” during the years in which she would be “one of the most photographed women in the world.”

The suit, filed Monday in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan against Mail Media, the owner of the Daily Mail, said the article published by the Daily Mail and its online division last August caused Trump’s brand, Melania, to lose “significant value” as well as “major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her.” The suit noted that the article had damaged Trump’s “unique, once in a lifetime opportunity” to “launch a broad-based commercial brand.”

“These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed on Trump’s behalf by California attorney Charles Harder.

The new suit comes as Trump continues to shy away from the spotlight, taking an unusually low-profile approach thus far to her role as first lady. She has continued to live in New York, and has moved slowly to hire a White House staff.

Richard Painter, a White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush and a critic of President Trump’s decision to retain ownership of his real estate and branding empire while in office, said Monday that he was troubled by the suggestion in the new suit that Melania Trump intended to profit from her public role.

“There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity of being first lady,” said Painter, who is participating in a lawsuit claiming that President Trump’s relationship with his company violates a constitutional provision barring presidents from taking money or gifts from foreign governments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.750fa9b450a1

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I read REDVANs posts in a Sean Spicer voice now, PERIOD.

Try it as Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Try it as Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer.

At least people had heard of Melissa McCarthy. Some people probably still don't know much about Sean Spicer (who I've been out against in this thread, so it's actually more insulting to be likened to him... thanks guys )

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The reason you are getting a hard time on this is it seems that every time you say that we shouldn't be saying something that isn't true, it is in fact true, and we all know it so we don't bother sourcing. Perhaps a better way for you to handle this would be when you see a statement that appears outlandish, do a quick Google search yourself before calling people on it. You might just find that we are right, or if we are wrong you can prove it, rather than just telling us not to say stuff that is most likely fact.

This is what he did if I recall correctly when he was denying Anthropogenic Climate Change. Everyone else was wrong all because his Geology or something prof said so. No coherent argument or sense that he was seeking to seek out or look at the evidence for himself.

And people make statements based on behavioural observations and nothing more on the hockey forum all the time. e.g. Player x looks like he is injured.