The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[DC Tom]

 

Thank God for CNN. How else would we have known that 'he who shall not be named' has TWO scoops of ice cream to the one scoop everyone else gets?!?

 

That's the kind of astute journalism that brings down administrations!

 

In CNN's defense, they were only reporting on Time magazine's story.

[row_33]

I scream you scream we impeach for ice cream.

[B-Man]

ANGRY WITH JEFF SESSIONS, THE NEW YORK TIMES REVISES HISTORY

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK BAUERLEIN: No Guilt This Time.

“Which brings us back to Donald Trump.

Why do people hate him so?

Because he won’t accept this appointed condition. He has no white guilt. He doesn’t feel any male guilt, either, or American guilt or Christian guilt.

He talks about the United States with uncritical approval—’America First’—and that’s a thought crime in the eyes of liberals.”

 

He rejects their assumed position of moral and intellectual supremacy. Which is both fair, and painful, because that position has always been a lie.

[Tiberius]

ANGRY WITH JEFF SESSIONS, THE NEW YORK TIMES REVISES HISTORY

 

 

 

 

 

 

MARK BAUERLEIN: No Guilt This Time.

“Which brings us back to Donald Trump.

Why do people hate him so?

Because he won’t accept this appointed condition. He has no white guilt. He doesn’t feel any male guilt, either, or American guilt or Christian guilt.

He talks about the United States with uncritical approval—’America First’—and that’s a thought crime in the eyes of liberals.”

 

He rejects their assumed position of moral and intellectual supremacy. Which is both fair, and painful, because that position has always been a lie.

 

No, the people hate him for the reasons Tom says about him. He is a Jack a$$ pure and simple

[/dev/null]

No, the people hate him for the reasons Tom says about him. He is a Jack a$$ pure and simple

[DC Tom]

No, the people hate him for the reasons Tom says about him. He is a Jack a$$ pure and simple

 

No, actually for the most part people hate him because they're emotionally invested in hating him. They have so much invested in the "Trump is Hitler!" argument that they have to go way out of their way to attribute to malice what's more easily attributed to stupidity, simply because to do otherwise makes their hatred completely irrational and their view of him (as Hitler) completely incorrect. As was said somewhere (in another thread, I think), people need Trump to be Hitler, because otherwise they're just unhinged.

 

He is a jackass, pure and simple. But that has nothing to do with why people hate him.

[GoBills808]

Are you old enough to be a wage earner? If so, have you ever looked at a pay stub? Since my mid thirties I have been an independent contractor who filed on a Schedule "C", which means I gave the federal government over 15% of my income for them to set aside in order to pay me social security benefits when I reach retirement age. When I receive that money it won't be welfare to me in any sense of the word. It will be the return to me of money that the government in effect confiscated from me in order to send it to other countries or fund WIC.

 

From the part that is in bold above it is apparent that you have never felt the pain of contributing much to our government and are acting on untested theories (by you) or are not much more than a party apparatchik.

I'm 31 and employ 7 people, I'm well aware of how taxes work. And it's welfare in the sense that when you hit eligibility you're not receiving the money they 'set aside' during your wage earning years, you're receiving revenue collected directly from taxpayers. Not to mention that Congress can change benefits at their whim and since 2010 it's been an unfunded liability.

 

And as for the 'paystub' argument, if they didn't categorize it as SS and Medicare on people's checks and call it an 'entitlement' and instead just lumped everything together and wrote 'employer/employee exchange tax'...people would have a much easier time calling these programs welfare. And 'party apparatchik'? What party in our country would subscribe to the views I"ve put forward here? They're political suicide.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

He is a jackass, pure and simple. But that has nothing to do with why people hate him.

 

Exactly.

 

It was laid out clearly in the post, but Gator cannot accept (or comprehend) the obvious.

 

Why do people hate him so?

Because he won’t accept this appointed condition. He has no white guilt. He doesn’t feel any male guilt, either, or American guilt or Christian guilt.

He talks about the United States with uncritical approval—’America First’—and that’s a thought crime in the eyes of liberals.”

 

He rejects their assumed position of moral and intellectual supremacy. Which is both fair, and painful, because that position has always been a lie.

 

[Tiberius]

 

No, actually for the most part people hate him because they're emotionally invested in hating him. They have so much invested in the "Trump is Hitler!" argument that they have to go way out of their way to attribute to malice what's more easily attributed to stupidity, simply because to do otherwise makes their hatred completely irrational and their view of him (as Hitler) completely incorrect. As was said somewhere (in another thread, I think), people need Trump to be Hitler, because otherwise they're just unhinged.

 

He is a jackass, pure and simple. But that has nothing to do with why people hate him.

 

Exactly.

 

It was laid out clearly in the post, but Gator cannot accept (or comprehend) the obvious.

 

[grinreaper]

I'm 31 and employ 7 people, I'm well aware of how taxes work. And it's welfare in the sense that when you hit eligibility you're not receiving the money they 'set aside' during your wage earning years, you're receiving revenue collected directly from taxpayers. Not to mention that Congress can change benefits at their whim and since 2010 it's been an unfunded liability.

 

And as for the 'paystub' argument, if they didn't categorize it as SS and Medicare on people's checks and call it an 'entitlement' and instead just lumped everything together and wrote 'employer/employee exchange tax'...people would have a much easier time calling these programs welfare. And 'party apparatchik'? What party in our country would subscribe to the views I"ve put forward here? They're political suicide.

So, do you seriously think social security is welfare?

[GoBills808]

So, do you seriously think social security is welfare?

Yes. I don't consider welfare the purview of the poor explicitly.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes. I don't consider welfare the purview of the poor explicitly.

 

How can it be welfare when it's your money that you earned?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yes. I don't consider welfare the purview of the poor explicitly.

That's because you're trying to treat the meanings of words as malleable in order to bolster your argument.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Social Security is just about the worst investment in the world, and does incredible harm to the working class, as it actively works to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation.

 

The government seizes the "investor's" assets with the promise to repay in retirement with some accumulated interest. The interest paid is not in line with what could be accumulated over an individuals entire working life were they instead allowed to invest the money themselves, is subject to zero fiduciary standards, and can be changed by congress. The money, once an individual and their spouse are deceased, is not paid out to the estate.

 

This "service" is not welfare; it's the confiscation of wealth to the detriment of those who need it most.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's because you're trying to treat the meanings of words as malleable in order to bolster your argument.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Social Security is just about the worst investment in the world, and does incredible harm to the working class, as it actively works to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation.

 

The government seizes the "investor's" assets with the promise to repay in retirement with some accumulated interest. The interest paid is not in line with what could be accumulated over an individuals entire working life were they instead allowed to invest the money themselves, is subject to zero fiduciary standards, and can be changed by congress. The money, once an individual and their spouse are deceased, is not paid out to the estate.

 

This "service" is not welfare; it's the confiscation of wealth to the detriment of those who need it most.

[Tiberius]

But most people spend way more money than they earn and would have wasted their money on lottery tickets, beer, cigs and whatnot had the government not stepped in with soc sec to manage their money for them.

 

And with Medicare, many get way more out of their investment than they put in.

[Chef Jim]

But most people spend way more money than they earn and would have wasted their money on lottery tickets, beer, cigs and whatnot had the government not stepped in with soc sec to manage their money for them.

 

 

 

So you're saying that we have to legislate for all due to the bad behavior of some?

[Tiberius]

 

So you're saying that we have to legislate for all due to the bad behavior of some?

Not of some, but of most.

[GoBills808]

 

How can it be welfare when it's your money that you earned?

It's not your money, per se. It's technically a federal mandate that the wages of the employed be transferred to you, the beneficiary, the precondition of which was you attaining a certain age and having paid into the system similarly for a given number of years. Essentially, a transfer of wealth between two groups with no real connection between the taxes an individual pays and benefits they receive. Thus, welfare IMO.

That's because you're trying to treat the meanings of words as malleable in order to bolster your argument.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Social Security is just about the worst investment in the world, and does incredible harm to the working class, as it actively works to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation.

 

The government seizes the "investor's" assets with the promise to repay in retirement with some accumulated interest. The interest paid is not in line with what could be accumulated over an individuals entire working life were they instead allowed to invest the money themselves, is subject to zero fiduciary standards, and can be changed by congress. The money, once an individual and their spouse are deceased, is not paid out to the estate.

 

This "service" is not welfare; it's the confiscation of wealth to the detriment of those who need it most.

We have very different outlooks on this but have somehow arrived at a similar conclusion.

[Chef Jim]

Not of some, but of most.

 

So you're saying most people don't save money but they'd rather spend it on beer, cigs, lottery tickets and "what not"? And you're basing this on what?

It's not your money, per se. It's technically a federal mandate that the wages of the employed be transferred to you, the beneficiary, the precondition of which was you attaining a certain age and having paid into the system similarly for a given number of years. Essentially, a transfer of wealth between two groups with no real connection between the taxes an individual pays and benefits they receive. Thus, welfare IMO.

 

 

Can we just call it what it really is and be done with it? The world's largest ponzi scheme.

[/dev/null]

 

Can we just call it what it really is and be done with it? The world's largest ponzi scheme.

Its a compulsory pyramid scheme.