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.

[Tiberius]

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?

 

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

 

 

Call you representative and complain! I so wish the Republicans would make it a priority to end social security

[Chef Jim]

Call you representative and complain! I so wish the Republicans would make it a priority to end social security

 

Good job avoiding my question.

[DC Tom]

 

Good job avoiding my question.

 

Obfuscation with actual obfuscation.

[snafu]

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

 

Maybe he's talking about SSI, which isn't funded by social security, but by federal taxes and has little to do with paying into the system to become eligible.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

 

 

 

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.

 

A good example of a racket.

[Tiberius]

Obfuscation with actual obfuscation.

Is simply ignoring the question obfuscation?

[DC Tom]

Is simply ignoring the question obfuscation?

 

Well, what the hell ISN'T obfuscation in your eyes, you !@#$ing whelk?

[Tiberius]

Well, what the hell ISN'T obfuscation in your eyes, you !@#$ing whelk?

 

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whelk

 

Ok!

 

You are Mr. Obfuscate, though

[Deranged Rhino]

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.

 

What?

 

How is money that I earned, which is taken from my paycheck, not my money per se?

 

Of course it's my money, it was earned by me and paid by me to the government with the "promise" of it being given back to me at a later date.

 

Maybe he's talking about SSI, which isn't funded by social security, but by federal taxes and has little to do with paying into the system to become eligible.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

 

Ah, maybe.

[Azalin]

 

What?

 

How is money that I earned, which is taken from my paycheck, not my money per se?

 

Of course it's my money, it was earned by me and paid by me to the government with the "promise" of it being given back to me at a later date.

 

 

It's beyond me why this is such a difficult concept for so many.

[DC Tom]

 

What?

 

How is money that I earned, which is taken from my paycheck, not my money per se?

 

Of course it's my money, it was earned by me and paid by me to the government with the "promise" of it being given back to me at a later date.

 

 

Because money is created by the government, therefore it belongs to the government, and the government has the right to take it away from you and give it to other people.

[Joe Miner]

 

It's beyond me why this is such a difficult concept for so many.

Try getting kicked in the head by a horse, and then see if it makes more sense.

 

I think there has to be an epidemic of horse attacks in this country that is vastly underreported. Or it is being covered up by the Big Plow industry.

[reddogblitz]

I watched about 5 minutes of CNN this afternoon and was literally laughing at thier coverage of the latest "crisis". A lot of speculation followed by hand ringing about how Russia is our sworn mortal enemy (Hey Mitt, the 1980s called and want thier foreign policy back.)

 

It makes for good comic relief. Almost as good as reading email from the DNC.

[OCinBuffalo]

The Media-Democratic Party Suicide Pact

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/the_mediademocratic_party_suicide_pact.html

 

Yep. Pay attention to the last paragraph. As I stated in the Comey thread, this is exactly what is going to happen. I see it coming right now. This guy agrees with what I wrote yesterday. If the Ds and their base of idiots do not actually accomplish something, once again, just like in 2014, and 2016, they will be running on: nothing. Harry Reid refusing to allow votes on anything from 2012 on, is why 2014 happened: they lost the Senate because Democrats had 2009 votes hanging around their necks, and NOTHING. Nothing to counter those terrible votes/policies they enabled, no other positive votes to point to, nothing they actually did.

 

Seinfeld worked great as "a show about nothing", because of the strength of the characters. Give me a single D "character" that can make their "show" successful. You can't. And, even if you could? A cast is required, not a single character. Is the cast of Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, and Durbin, with special guest appearances from Obama, Biden, and the Clintons, as the vehicle for the "Elect the Ds Show", going anywhere?

 

No. It's was already rejected! In 2016! Now they are trying to run the same show about nothing all over again? Good Luck!

[Azalin]

Try getting kicked in the head by a horse, and then see if it makes more sense.

 

I think there has to be an epidemic of horse attacks in this country that is vastly underreported. Or it is being covered up by the Big Plow industry.

 

Big Plow.

[row_33]

I watched about 5 minutes of CNN this afternoon and was literally laughing at thier coverage of the latest "crisis". A lot of speculation followed by hand ringing about how Russia is our sworn mortal enemy (Hey Mitt, the 1980s called and want thier foreign policy back.)

 

It makes for good comic relief. Almost as good as reading email from the DNC.

 

If you missed it, North American media was 100% in lockstep with:

 

1) Freud

2) Marx

3) The latest opinion polls.

 

They have totally forgotten that they put everything up to around 1998 around a Freudian and/or Marxian narrative, but they still have this mania for reporting rigged polls as fact.

[boyst]

front page google news....

Their blurb is:

 

'Such aid takes many forms. It includes federal Medicaid payments, education funding assistance, support for infrastructure projects, housing grants, and more. Federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments have reached $600 billion per year, with Medicaid by far the largest (and most rapidly growing) component. How much states receive in federal aid, and how reliant they are on such assistance, can vary widely.'

 

The specifics can be found here: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170123145044/FedAidtoStates-011.png They're pretty thorough, from housing to education to agriculture and low-income federal block grants...basically everything in the federal government's purview that can be apportioned to states. You'd be surprised at how much overlap there is between supposedly state-sponsored programs and what the feds can also subsidize. Politicking aside, US government funding is VAST and yet as a % of GDP pretty far below European averages (at least as of 2014 which I believe is the last time they did the research)...Canada is our closest comparison.

 

*Edit: sorry, link for specific info on federal aid categories is actually here: https://www.census.gov/govs/www/class_ch7_ir.html

still, it's a bull **** map, idiot.

[GoBills808]

still, it's a bull **** map, idiot.

No, it just requires a bit of lateral thinking.

 

And please don't call me an idiot on a messageboard. It's a bad look.

 

Love, GoBills808.

[boyst]

No, it just requires a bit of lateral thinking.

 

And please don't call me an idiot on a messageboard. It's a bad look.

 

Love, GoBills808.

sweetie, i apologize i made you look bad.

 

what would be more informal would be a county by county map of subsidies. but again, that doesn't tell us anything

 

a county in middle nebraska may get a ton of subsidies because of ag subsidies and per person that'll be greatly different say detroit. but what % goes to people?

[grinreaper]

sweetie, i apologize i made you look bad.

 

what would be more informal would be a county by county map of subsidies. but again, that doesn't tell us anything

 

a county in middle nebraska may get a ton of subsidies because of ag subsidies and per person that'll be greatly different say detroit. but what % goes to people?

Well, since he believes Social Security is welfare I wonder what the percentages would look like in Ft. Meyers?

[GoBills808]

sweetie, i apologize i made you look bad.

 

what would be more informal would be a county by county map of subsidies. but again, that doesn't tell us anything

 

a county in middle nebraska may get a ton of subsidies because of ag subsidies and per person that'll be greatly different say detroit. but what % goes to people?

Good point. That's the reason I posted the graphic: I was trying to illustrate that 'federal spending' isn't limited to what we consider 'welfare' and that our perception of how and to whom federal dollars are allocated doesn't always conform to the common narrative. In reality, we're all on the government dole whether we believe it or not.