Meltdown begins. Now quoting breitbart 
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Probably the only positive out of this lunatics presidency is that all the pretense of "fox news is not an arm of the GOP" has been completely wiped away. The President, almost daily, publicly calls for control over the editorial narrative of a "news organisation" to suit their own agenda. I'm so glad that we can now just openly call them "GOP media" and there won't be this white knighting of fox as "legitimate" from other outlets.
Right about now would be a good time for anonymous sources to step forward, otherwise this story looks like a fabrication that will only play into Trump’s cards.
It’s beyond me how this made it past The Atlantic’s editor, this is journalistic suicide.
It’s beyond me how this made it past The Atlantic’s editor, this is journalistic suicide.
The whole feckup isnt trump alone. There's no guarantee the next trump wont be able to pull another trump.
Trump has shown that anyone without political background can play a trump.
Trump has shown that anyone without political background can play a trump.
Right, it seems so out of character for him.
Did you miss the part where multiple other news organisations, including Fox News, have independently confirmed the allegations?
Donald Trump in offensive remark shocker. “Fake news” claim idiotic supporters.
Ehm, no.
I missed the part where a valid source was presented to give them any weight. This will do nothing to sway anyone away from Trump and further cement his status as a victim of media bias. For the rest, this is just preaching to the choir.
The fact nothing will sink the cnut doesnt mean normal people should stop pointing out he is a cnut. God himself could decent from the heavens and tell his supporters he's a twat and they'd tell him he's wrong. Feck his supporters. Anyone still supporting him now is officially a blight on humanity and should be regarded and shunned as such.
And yes, I do love the feeling of superiority writing these kind of posts give me.
I just realized you're the guy who posted this earlier, and I immediately lost any interest in engaging you.
Conspiracy theory about the globalist paedophile deep-state running the world and opposing Trump? Open your eyes, do your research, be prepared.
Trump saying something dumb? bUt wHerE aRe tHe soUrCeS?
You try to hide it behind "don't just trust Qanon either", but then you just can't help yourself and talk about "the storm", which is well known Qanon terminology.
Last edited:
Does put "valid source" in a new perspective. Does anyone have an anonymous 4chan poster confirming what Don said?
I think, in a way, that is the intent.
In case you haven't noticed, American politics have become very polarized, tribal in nature. Everyone one is entrenched in their view. For some Trump is a messiah and can do no wrong, for others the Orange Cheeto is the devil incarnate.
Trump himself is counting on the unwavering support of his base (he stated he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and nothing would come of it, or something to that effect).
At this point it's about which party is more outraged and motivated to vote. The article outrages the anti Trump camp. Mission accomplished.
Knew I recognised the name.
Wasn't aware of 'storm' being a Qanon copyright. That whole movement doesn't interest me, I haven't found credible sources there, either. The storm I'm refering to is the coming economic reset, which will potentially wipe out much of the middle class. My source for that conclusion are atrocious economic figures published by our very own central banks. We are in a money printing race to the bottom that will punish savers and pensioners.
In order to be on board with anything I need sources, preferably multiple. Don't you? Or is 'anonymous said' good enough for you?
Where did you get your degree in economics from?
What, apart from the video of him saying it about John McCain?
University of Youtube
Ohhhhh that democrat was owned. Thanks for posting.
Isn't that actually turning around with Fox? In the past year or so, there has been more criticism from Fox towards Trump (at least in their news segments; not the talk shows), and Trump is increasingly criticizing them. So it look more complicated to me: Fox's news arm is the voice of moderate conservative America (like The Lincoln Project), while their opinion arms represents populist, batshit crazy right. (I'd wonder how they handle that internally; but then I remember that some of the crazies on Fox are apparently nice people in person; it might be all a role to them.)
Apart from that, hasn't Trump called for the firing of lots of journalists from various news sources?
How is this good for Trump? My impression from the political war on social media is that the first hit counts for almost everything. So Trump spluttering about media bias in response to a story does not have anywhere near the impact of the original story. Yes, his base will always believe him, of course, but they already 'knew' about media bias. Outside the true believers, a seed will have been planted (or rather: the shoot turns into a full plant; this isn't the first such story), and Trump's denials won't change that.
Not really, apparently. I looked through that Twitter discussion a bit yesterday, and apparently Dean had been hinting at this secret service background already in the 90s, iirc.
If you need to study years to understand these figures you're doing it wrong. This is entry level stuff. A few good books will get you there. If you're interested, I have recommendations.
There's a healthy dose of irony in here somewhere.
Not really the thread for this, but then I wonder what you think about Modern Monetary Theory, which does not see this issue this way when it comes to state spending.
Not everyone can reveal their anonymity without fear of revenge though. I mean, anyone in the Trump administration knows they'll be fired if they get identified saying this kind of thing. So sometimes, you have to trust a journalist for doing a good job. No idea about these people from The Atlantic and Fox, but you could check some other articles of theirs to see how reliable they are.
I think 'woosh' is the word you were looking for.
MMT as a short term fix can make a lot of sense in situations like the Covid 19 lockdown. If it's a choice between printing more money and starvation/civil unrest/immediate economic collapse, the choice is easy (and cheaper).
Long term, the exponential nature of debt means you're kicking the can down the road without solving the mounting debt issue. It's not a substitute for sound money and sound budgeting since all you're doing is debasing the currency, which is a hidden tax on people's savings, incomes and purchasing power. The end game is a destruction of the currency. Hyperinflation is such a destructive scenario. MMT cannot escape the fact that money has to be earned first before it can be spent, otherwise you are simply consuming future earnings.
Jeff Booth's fantastic book "The Price of Tomorrow" explains this beautifully and shows a path forward.
I would much prefer a hard reset and return to some form of hard money standard. What's your take?
I'd love to see your recommendations.
Jeff Booth - The Price of Tomorrow.
Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics.
Bernard Litaer - The Future of Money.
John Kenneth Galbraith - The Great Crash 1929.
If listening is your thing, I would recommend these podcasts:
The Pomp Podcast
Hidden Forces
Real Vision
The Grant Williams Podcast
That's a weird mash-up, to say the least.
Let's see your recommendations.
God, no. I got what I asked for, I'm happy, we're done.
Of course. Didn't think so.
May 1980
May 1980
And this is only a 5 on a scale of 1-10 of the shit things he did as a landlord. If you want to laugh/cry/shake with rage while hearing more I recommend the Dollup podcast. They did a 2 parter on Trump.
Part 1: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...d-gareth-reynolds/id643055307?i=1000394768321
Part 2:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...d-gareth-reynolds/id643055307?i=1000394768320
As I said, not really the right thread, but that's not a full assessment of MMT. It's not just about investing in the economy in times of crisis; it wouldn't be a hotly debated topic if it were. Also, MMT calls for reactions to inflation, it does not promote hyperinflation. Everybody agrees that's destructive.
To be honest, I don't get the full intricacies of it all, but I do know that, similarly, the debt issue is more complicated. Governments use their borrowing to invest in their economies, which pays back in the long term. (E.g.: infrastructure is not just a one-off expenditure; it generates economic growth long-term.) If the value of the resulting growth exceeds the debt's interest payments, then future generations are actually getting more out of the initial borrowing than they're paying in interest. (Which is especially likely to happen now interest rates are at a hisotorical low. In facts some countries in Europe are being urged to borrow because they can do it against negative interest rates.) Future generations cannot easily see this effect though, since this growth is in practical terms invisible and difficult to assess, while the interest is a concrete amount that you can see disappear every year. And so it just feels like you're paying for your ancestors' spendthrift. That's why government economics really are different and much more complex than household economics. (Which is the usual point of reference for opponents of government debt.)
Again, I'm no expert, but my focus would anyway rather be on what we want from society, and then build the economy around that. E.g., prioritize establishing a strong and comprehensive welfare state, set taxes that can pay for that, and then take it from there. Of course, in that situation, we'll still have economic tides, with decisions to make on when to borrow and how much; but I find that a little useless for political consideration if we're not fixing society first. People now focus on growth and 'the economy' as if they matter first and per se, which to me is the tail wagging the dog.
I think the discussion is a little too polemical here, which doesn't help; but as I said, I do think it's more complex than you were making out with your comment on savers and pensioners. If anything, for example, interest rates have been dropping for years and were negligible already before the pandemic crisis, and before countries were spending like crazy. Also, equity in pension funds comes from investments in the stock market, which has a different dynamic.
Sorry - we should probably move this discussion to a different thread...
This photo of his ... What a punchable mug.May 1980
- Status