American Politics

[M3J]

Trump Administration is basically calling articles reporting on low attendance as fake. This is scary because they could literally say the same for any news, and most Trumptards would believe it. If Trump makes a major mistake, all they have to do is say "fake news," have the news ignore it or lie about it, and look good in the process. Bam, second term for Trump.

This is scary.

 

[POW]

Well to be honest the main stream media is not exactly free and honest though that doesn't mean every criticism of Trump can be waved away. However lets be objectively honest here the media showed great bias towards Hilary and was hardly objective towards her past actions only praising her accomplishments and going along with her re-branding while only lightly touching on any criticism.. However this is not something new, leading up the Iraq war we saw a similar response or lack there of with the media only giving a thumbs up approval on with hardly any push back.


So this is nothing new and please note now that via mergers today the majority of all major media is owned by only 6 companies. That in itself is a dangerous precedent for free and open press !

 

[M3J]

I know, and if it weren't for the media being in Hillary's pocket and democrats loving Hillary, we'd likely see President Sanders instead.

Nevertheless, even with the media in Hillary's pocket we still had "sources," no matter how shitty, like Breitbart and Infowars. With Trump, all he has to do is say fake news, and his dumbo supporters will actually believe it.

 

[POW]

Yeah Trump is sensitive to criticism but it doesn't help not having objective reporting from a media that only spins propaganda that feeds into his defensiveness and counter propaganda.

 

[xi0]

Bernie had better numbers against Trump than Hillary had against him, and people did seem more enthused to vote for him overall, but I still don't know if it's a given that he would have won. But that being said, he would have been a stronger nominee IMO.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Bernie had better numbers against Trump than Hillary had against him, and people did seem more enthused to vote for him overall, but I still don't know if it's a given that he would have won. But that being said, he would have been a stronger nominee IMO.

I think people were using the Primaries as a template to get a general idea about "What if Sanders was the nominee instead of Hillary". Based on the popular vote by county and state, Sanders performed wonderful in the Midwest (if you consider how conservative those states are). On top of that, Sanders won 2 states that Hillary lost in the General Election (Wisconsin and Michigan), and those are the two states that were "supposed" to be won by Hillary based on Polls.
But unfortunately, I don't think the Primaries are enough to actually correctly predict if Sanders could have won the Election. He didn't do well in any of the southern states in the Primaries, but Hillary lost all of them in the general election (including Florida and North Carolina). Then there's also the fact that some states allows Democrats to vote for a Democratic Candidate (meaning, people like me who're registered as "No Party Affiliation" can't vote for Hillary or Sanders in the Primary), so it takes away the numbers of potential voters that Hillary missed.

I don't know. It would be really difficult to predict if Sanders would've won the Election with so many missing factors. However, I can definitely agree that he's a stronger candidate.

 

[xi0]

The voting population in the Primaries compared to the General isn't really the fairest benchmark. There are so many factors at work there, especially given the amount of potential options to split the vote. If you take Maryland as an example, no one cares who wins the Republican primary here because no GOP nominee not named Reagan has ever won here. So the Republican population as well as turnout it usually low. Then, like you said, there are handful of states with open primaries which screws demographic studies up immensely.

 

[James Rye]

If Trumpy really believes that there were over 1.5 million people in his inauguration then he needs some glasses. Or a new sense of reality. Like come on, you were literally there yourself, how could you not see all the free space in-between the crowds?

 

[M3J]

If Trumpy really believes that there were over 1.5 million people in his inauguration then he needs some glasses. Or a new sense of reality. Like come on, you were literally there yourself, how could you not see all the free space in-between the crowds?

He's lying. He's a liar, that's what his campaign was run on. This is why I'm angry that his supporters are dumb enough to believe his bullshit despite proof.

And now, his administration is changing the meaning of "fake news" and making up words like "alternative truth." Fucking hell, man.

 

[kkck]

He's lying. He's a liar, that's what his campaign was run on. This is why I'm angry that his supporters are dumb enough to believe his bullshit despite proof.

And now, his administration is changing the meaning of "fake news" and making up words like "alternative truth." Fucking hell, man.

The alternative fact thing was ridiculous... What is even the point of that? Why not just say the media is lying rather than use an overtly bullshit term like alternative fact?

 

[Wowzers]

That whole Alternative Fact thing reminded me of Babylon 5 where Earthgov was spreading storys and calling them Real Facts. People would eat them up because they wanted to believe them, not because they were real. Lets hope things don't get so bad as it did in Babylon 5.

 

[M3J]

The alternative fact thing was ridiculous... What is even the point of that? Why not just say the media is lying rather than use an overtly bullshit term like alternative fact?

Probably because there is proof that Spicer was full of shit. Alternative fact wouldn't make it look like that, I guess?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

May god save us all...

 

[Philia]

Hmm......what do you guys think about this?

http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/22/bill-introduced-to-remove-us-from-united-nations/

 

[Newkerzy]

May god save us all...

Sorry for sounding like a weaboo but I always thought historic and historical is interchangeable? Well, English is my second language....

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Hmm......what do you guys think about this?

http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/22/bill-introduced-to-remove-us-from-united-nations/

I get that the United Nations is flawned as hell, but to leave this organization would be a fucking disaster waiting to happen. I'm not feeling comfortable about this decision.
Besides, isn't it just better to at least withdraw some fundings from the UN instead? They'd still have the Veto power and the UN cans till operate.

Sorry for sounding like a weaboo but I always thought historic and historical is interchangeable? Well, English is my second language....

Historic means "important or Notable event in history" (think "Memorable") whereas historical means "of or concerning history; concerning past events." (think "Ancient history").
Although, I did checked out the tweet, and she did said "Historic" instead of "Historical". Then again, just like Trump, she could have deleted the tweet and updated it to "Historic".

 

[kkck]

Hmm......what do you guys think about this?

http://nbc4i.com/2017/01/22/bill-introduced-to-remove-us-from-united-nations/

Is this even true? UNexit? The UN is less than perfect but regardless we are all better off with it than without it. I was already thinking the world was about to get incredibly chaotic from a politics point of view (trump questioning US support to NATO, far right wing movements getting increased force in europe and so on) but this would take things even further. The US leaving the UN would effectively castrate it and there isn't anything that could possibly pick up the slack.....

 

[Philia]

Trump expected to sign executive order to cancel TPP.

He is on a roll. Iran nuclear deal will be next, I guess.

 

[kkck]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-foreign-government-profits-lawsuit-234015

and the plot thickens. I am not sure of the odds of this working are. We already know trump has used his influence to have events use his own hotels rather than the ones they were going to use originally though that counting as emolument might be a tad of a stretch. I guess it ultimately depends on how you interpret the law. I guess that might be besides the point though. It would be easy to prove trump has used his influence to have government events (local or foreign) simply by pointing out that suddenly his hotels are the norm for such events. Even if he is not charged with anything, which is the most realistic scenario, just having people see this would in a way hurt him.

In turn, there is also the consideration of trump's response. Trump is the king of suing people. And now he is president. He will absolutely countersue these guys. We might even see some libel stuff in there. Whatever the case, if this advances even a tiny bit it can easily turn big very quickly IMO.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 23, 2017 ---

Trump expected to sign executive order to cancel TPP.

He is on a roll. Iran nuclear deal will be next, I guess.

Indeed. I guess he wants war with iran? He also seems to have ordered his generals to draft a plan to fight isis. Even though he already had a secret plant to deal with them.

 

[Newkerzy]

Is this even true? UNexit? The UN is less than perfect but regardless we are all better off with it than without it. I was already thinking the world was about to get incredibly chaotic from a politics point of view (trump questioning US support to NATO, far right wing movements getting increased force in europe and so on) but this would take things even further. The US leaving the UN would effectively castrate it and there isn't anything that could possibly pick up the slack.....

Remember how WW2 started? It didn't start with Hitler invading Poland. It started with the dissolution of the League of Nations (which is the predecessor of the UN) and it only got worse from there....