Login Register

Poll: what do
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
serves term w/o issue, is reelected
14.29%
1 14.29%
serves term w/o issue, not reelected
57.14%
4 57.14%
impeached, but not kicked out, is reelected
0%
0 0%
impeached, but not kicked out, not reelected
14.29%
1 14.29%
impeached, kicked out before term end
0%
0 0%
resigns (or otherwise) before term ends
14.29%
1 14.29%
Total 7 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

trump thread
#16
I was thinking about police and military families and other people related to government employess who are themselves republican

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/penta...-paycheck/

I wouldn't think this looks good to the blue lives matter folks but idk
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
Reply
#17
police aren’t funded through the federal government though? they’re not impacted at all and the military is still being paid. they just aren’t getting their annual raises.
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#18
yeah i don’t... know what that article is getting at, the department of defense is funded through September and they’re all being paid. even like condolence payments are being paid still

edit: lol just the coast guard isn’t because they fall under homeland security. they and their families are not statistically significant. they definitely aren’t the army or navy
[Image: NSiuXpT.jpg]
Reply
#19
yeah the coast guard, TSA, FBI (to an extent), and the air traffic controllers (OK maybe i shouldnt lump them in) ive all seen cited as not being paid

i do appreciate that aoc primaried a democrat who sat on his laurels, but she is the quintessential say everything, do nothing democrat. like, dont give lectures to people about how to use twitter to Totally Own the Fellow Kids on the Block. its no wonder ben shapiro is so obsessed with her, she's stealing his schtick

also red flag #1 was her non-apology to this shit: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...re-for-all

she grossly misconstrued some numbers, then when asked about it said "yeah some ppl get really upset about being, like, exactly correct" as if she made a little boo boo instead of flunking something you'd see on an 8th grade math test
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#20
as i typed that post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...5b6ae6f86c
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#21
re: the deplorables comment, i agree that hillary should in general not have backed down. like, who expects HER to be kind to these people who want her dead?

but, you have to be careful not to create a terrible vortex of misinformation like the things above. you say some crazy shit, and the people who already agree still agree, and those who dont dont, but those undecided are undecided usually because they reserve judgment or care about, yknow, what's actually true? so you say this zany shit that isn't true on any planet named earth i've heard of and make enemies out of them
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#22
that Washington Post article isn't fact-checking, it's clear propaganda

his first point is confusing as heck. first he says that living standards are difficult to measure (true) but then tries to paint AOC as if she's either lying or ignorant (I'd go for demagogic but ok); so far so good but then he goes on to look at income of employed persons?? what?? not only does he contradict himself but he completely glosses over the unemployed, unregistered and of course the illegals. kinda bad when you're trying to accuse others of being sloppy.

then he throws her a bone about families because that always looks good in WaPo

THEN he does something absolutely egregious which is to counterpoint her accusation that big companies like walmart and amazon get government handouts while treating their employees like garbage, to which he counters with... a statement from the fucking amazon spokesperson? really? let's just ignore the mountains of evidence of abuse AND of handouts just like she said

bah, that article is bogus
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
Reply
#23
as for AOC yes she did say things that are wrong and I find it hilarious that the right is falling on her like vultures while jacing off into their MAGA hats

she was absolutely correct when she said that when it comes to a politicians words the morals behind what they say are way more important than the strict factual accuracy of what they claim in freeform speech. fact-checking shouldn't even be this big important thing before policy is drafted anyway - that was one of the many pitfalls of media, going "uh Trump said mexicans are rapists but IS IT TRUE??" is missing the entire fucking forest of xenophobic rhetoric for the tree of what % of mexicans commit rape. it's also a form of arguing from pedantry which is a crowd pleaser on the right but also a blatant distraction tactic.

the morals of Trumpism are isolationism, xenophobia and reactionaryism. the morals of AOC are mild progressivism and uh I guess being hip with the kids. this should be the baseline of any reporting.
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
Reply
#24
as much as i miss the general forum i dont have the energy to have a big discussion/argument over stuff rn but ill try to clarify my appreciation for the article

(01-25-2019, 08:28 AM)grue Wrote: that Washington Post article isn't fact-checking, it's clear propaganda

his first point is confusing as heck. first he says that living standards are difficult to measure (true) but then tries to paint AOC as if she's either lying or ignorant (I'd go for demagogic but ok); so far so good but then he goes on to look at income of employed persons?? what?? not only does he contradict himself but he completely glosses over the unemployed, unregistered and of course the illegals. kinda bad when you're trying to accuse others of being sloppy.
but, she obviously meant to paint the issue as a very big problem by using the phrase "vast majority" when the reality is:

-as the article cites, 38% don't meet the wage requirements
-there is a 4% unemployment rate
-let's say all 11 million illegal immigrants in the US are 1) undocumented/unaccounted for 2) adults 3) not making a living wage, that's still only 3%

so, you're gonna have to tell me that 45% can be described as the "vast majority" when it isn't even a majority. let's slap another 6% on there for no reason and still we only have a majority. it's just another way for aoc/the "left" to push an idea but not actually address an issue at hand. i dunno where he contradicts himself, i generally trust washington post so idk

(01-25-2019, 08:28 AM)grue Wrote: then he throws her a bone about families because that always looks good in WaPo

im stupid, this just sounds like grumpitude

(01-25-2019, 08:28 AM)grue Wrote: THEN he does something absolutely egregious which is to counterpoint her accusation that big companies like walmart and amazon get government handouts while treating their employees like garbage, to which he counters with... a statement from the fucking amazon spokesperson? really? let's just ignore the mountains of evidence of abuse AND of handouts just like she said
here's the thing though: it's sloppy because there is no small list of companies that do shrift their employees with really low wages and then get mondo bucks from government food/farm/resource subsidies (like mcdonalds) but she doesnt mention those for some reason, she mentions the ones that have taken at least half a baby step toward doing something right
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#25
and thats a response from a walmart rep, not amazon, not that it matters too much

my main point is, if im in a room with aoc and im like "finally! we can enact the change we want" and instead she's tweeting on her phone and talking about how amazon needs to die when really its a bit more nuanced than that and aoc can you please put the phone down for a second i really want to talk about the numbers here before oh you want some coffee, ok sure but can you get back here soon because we really need to work hard on this bill because people who disagree with you will have to read and understand it and people will have questions and oh, we're out of time? ok well thank you i guess bye

the rhetorical point is fine if this is not an actual congressperson that i expect to like, write the legislation. if shes a general "promoter" then im ok with bullshittin but she WRITES the LAWS and OVERSEES them. i pay her salary. put down the phone and read some more you chucklefuck
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#26
(01-25-2019, 08:35 AM)grue Wrote: as for AOC yes she did say things that are wrong and I find it hilarious that the right is falling on her like vultures while jacing off into their MAGA hats

she was absolutely correct when she said that when it comes to a politicians words the morals behind what they say are way more important than the strict factual accuracy of what they claim in freeform speech. fact-checking shouldn't even be this big important thing before policy is drafted anyway - that was one of the many pitfalls of media, going "uh Trump said mexicans are rapists but IS IT TRUE??" is missing the entire fucking forest of xenophobic rhetoric for the tree of what % of mexicans commit rape. it's also a form of arguing from pedantry which is a crowd pleaser on the right but also a blatant distraction tactic.

the morals of Trumpism are isolationism, xenophobia and reactionaryism. the morals of AOC are mild progressivism and uh I guess being hip with the kids. this should be the baseline of any reporting.

ok ok but decrying the need of "strict factual accuracy" when citing a plan to redirect funds from a nonexistant budget to free college just makes me mad, and im not "on the right". people can be annoyed at that and not be crowdpleased "on the right". id love free college, but if im gonna get my hopes up then i need to be sure that's actually possible and not a made up fairytale for internet points
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#27
ok I know you don't want to make this a discussion, so I'll just bullet point it:

. the numbers in the article are higher (43%) just for households under living standards but if we're going to be going at it line by line then you should know unemployment rate only tracks people who are jobless and looking for work and that's the point; by that guy's calculations a student that's unemployed but not registered as seeking jobs or surviving on a part-time job (ie not jobless) that makes more than the $/hr he indicates is not under living standards. the point is that if you're going to be anal about it then do it well.

. my guy she says "like" amazon and walmart, clearly citing examples

. she took office like 10 days ago into a shutdown. she IS working on drafting bills which then can and should be fact-checked. she tweets like twice a day but ok
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
Reply
#28
my issue with the article is that it expects of AOC a level of accuracy from something she said in freeform speech that the fact-checker does not level himself up to. I don't care for her much but it's striking how predatorial media is over her mistakes while broadstroking shit but when they do it it's suddenly not important. other than that she's a politician saying politician things. I mean today Ted Cruz said the wheel was a "medieval thing"

edit: ie my point isn't "she's right", I called her a demagogue even, my point is the author exaggerated things his way aswell

edit2: my "crowdpleaser on the right" jab was aimed at how media reports these things not at you
[Image: 4761558c1f.png]
Reply
#29
-so, we take the 43% baseline, the ridiculous assumption that all illegals are wage-slaving adults (3%), the unemployment rate (let's double it to 8%), we have 54%. let's give it another 6% out of thin air and we finally almost have two-thirds. how much are we going to bend these numbers for the sake of the ends justifying the means? it's all ridiculous. we should just put the calculators down and call it what it is- she believes in a thing thats right and is willing to say and do what it takes to get it. i think that's ugly and undermines the importance of the issue, period. if im petty for breaking out the numbers, she's petty for pumping them up in the first place

-again, she's putting the issue before the truth and its betraying both. on a list of best targets, amazon and walmart are on the list but lower than a lot of good targets. this is how laws turn to shit: you address the wrong issue, the problem never goes away, and people try to make more laws like a cartoon character desperately shoveling water out of a sinking boat. we do not need more of these types of people in congress

-i was ironically unironically point out what a vast understatement "twice a day" is but that wasn't really my point- i dont care if she tweets every minute if it means shes also working on good stuff. my concern is that ive seen the trailer for the movie and it reeks. ill wait for the reviews, thanks
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply
#30
and yeah i dunno you're being a lil too sympathetic while also calling the article propaganda- it's all shit, the wapo article just happens to have a better kinsey score imo
[Image: Sd9744R.png]
Reply


Forum Jump: