Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump III - the daily log  (Read 37223 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2018, 02:39:44 pm »

Wrong. A lie is knowingly not telling the truth...

Correct. And determining if it was "knowingly" is most of the time an opinion.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2018, 02:48:10 pm »

First all, there are several people who now can't afford Healthcare because of the increase in regs, which increased the cost and decreased options.  Many in the USA, especially the young, are choosing to pay the fine instead of buying coverage.  This is only increasing the cost even more.  Have you been paying attention to how fast the rates are rising? 
If I remember correctly President Trump was promising great health insurance in place of the ACA during the campaign.  The Republican Congress in all their attempts to repeal the ACA said the same knowing full well that Obama would veto any of those attempts (they could never get enough votes from the Senate in any case).  Yet what proposals have we seen from either the White House or the Republican Congress?  I can't see that we have seen anything of substance to this point.  Instead, the Administration is halting the payments to insurance companies that are supposed to make up for the high risk coverage individuals.

Also remember that the ACA covers a very small number of people percentage wise and many of those at low income levels are eligible for assistance in paying their premiums.  I would love to see your proposal for covering these people.

Quote
On top of this, the fine is a joke.  If someone does not want to pay it, there is really no way to force them to do so.  Unless the Dems wanted to start jailing people over it, which would be a PR nightmare.   
  Yet this was originally a conservative Republican proposal from the Heritage Foundation back in the early 1990s (I have the original paper in my files!!!!!)

Quote
On top of this, the vast majority of those who are now covered by the ACA had coverage previously, so in effect, the bill did very little to actually help those it was targeted towards, and discourages those whom it needs to succeed, the young, from joining by artficially inflating the price of insurance for young people. 
This may vary from state to state but I can absolutely tell you that it was not the case in either MD or PA (Philadelphia) when my two daughters had ACA policies while they were independent contractors and did not have employer-sponsored health insurance.  Both had reasonable monthly premiums.

Quote
Although it was well intentioned, and it was, it is a victim almost all of these policies are of, that being the effects of over regulation.  The effects of which are always to decrease options and raise prices.
Part of the problem in the US is that the tax code makes it advantageous for companies to provide health insurance for their employees.  Even so, both premiums and co-pays have gone up considerably for such insurance so this not just a problem with ACA policies.

Maybe if the Republicans would stop bitching and try to solve problems we could cover everyone in the country the same way that virtually every other developed country in the world does.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2018, 02:53:38 pm »

Nope.

What is a lie is a matter of opinion. News is presenting facts what a politician said and what facts are and letting the audience draw a conclusion. Labeling it is an opinion. A journalist drawing a conclusion is an opinion. Presenting facts, relevant and complete, is news.
I don't see how this can be correct.  If something is true, it can be labeled as being true and vice versa.  Maybe you don't like the word 'lie' and might prefer 'untruth.'  There is sufficient documentation in news reports both print and media that permit the labeling of something being 'untrue' without it being an opinion in most of the cases that I have seen.  If somebody says to me "2 + 2 = 5" then I can say this is not true.  If the President says something that is contradicted by facts, then that can be labeled as 'untrue.'  Why should this be considered an 'opinion.'
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2018, 02:55:17 pm »

Nope. There was no election by popular vote.
There are true believers (I am not one of them) that have the contrary opinion.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #44 on: July 20, 2018, 02:56:47 pm »

Um I think you have this slightly wrong.  He was elected by the Electoral College.  Clinton was elected by the people.  Need to be precise otherwise it is 'fake news.'
Clinton was elected to nothing.   She lost the election.  Precisely.  Stop spreading "fake news". 

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2018, 03:08:22 pm »

More exciting news for the Daily Log.  Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly taped the discussion between him and the candidate about paying off Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate he allegedly had an affair with.  One wonders what other evidence Mr. Mueller might have in the trove of materials that were seized.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2018, 03:17:13 pm »

We were in Santa Fe last weekend and there was some kind of festival going on with lots of music in the Plaza.  We were standing right next to the monument to those who fought for New Mexico (then a territory) on the Union side in the Civil War.  There was a fellow in a purple Louisiana State tee shirt cursing somewhat noticeably about the language on the statue which was critical of the South.  He said that this would not be permitted in Louisiana and was angry that all the statues to Confederate generals are being taken down.  I offered no reply.
Did you visit the Georgia O'Keeffe museum to see the photos and art?  We visited there in April.  I wonder what the guy would say about the Indian modern art paintings there?

Mike Medicine Horse Zillioux (Pawnee/Cherokee/...)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2018, 03:26:23 pm »

More exciting news for the Daily Log.  Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly taped the discussion between him and the candidate about paying off Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate he allegedly had an affair with.  One wonders what other evidence Mr. Mueller might have in the trove of materials that were seized.
She's hot.  Men will forgive him.  (I dare you not to check).
https://www.google.com/search?q=karen+mcdougal+today&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcm_aMtK7cAhVKuVkKHTEcATUQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=854

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #48 on: July 20, 2018, 03:59:06 pm »

Correct. And determining if it was "knowingly" is most of the time an opinion.

Most of the time? Your opinion, or do you have evidence that it is a fact?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #49 on: July 20, 2018, 04:10:59 pm »

Most of the time? Your opinion, or do you have evidence that it is a fact?

Cheers,
Bart
Well, it's a fact that it's his opinion.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #50 on: July 20, 2018, 04:23:30 pm »

Well, it's a fact that it's his opinion.

Which doesn't make it true.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #51 on: July 20, 2018, 04:38:43 pm »

Which doesn't make it true.

Cheers,
Bart
But it's true that it's a fact it's his opinion.  It would only be false if his opinion was a fact. 

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #52 on: July 20, 2018, 05:01:53 pm »

In all seriousness, has anyone released a non-biased analysis on exactly how influential this meddling was?

No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.

While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated.  And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.

And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make?  Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.

Florida was always a toss-up.  Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that they were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.

The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election.  The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.

The election is over.  The result is not in doubt.  Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 05:21:08 pm by Chris Kern »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2018, 05:10:49 pm »

I feel like we are witnessing a slightly altered version of Waiting for Godot, but with the same level ambiguousness, play out with half the contributors of this thread right now. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #54 on: July 20, 2018, 05:13:57 pm »

Did you visit the Georgia O'Keeffe museum to see the photos and art?  We visited there in April.  I wonder what the guy would say about the Indian modern art paintings there?

Mike Medicine Horse Zillioux (Pawnee/Cherokee/...)

Thats such a great museum, both in terms of the architecture and he exhibits.   Restaurant is pretty good too!
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2018, 05:20:01 pm »

No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.

While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated.  And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.

And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make?  Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.

Florida was always a toss-up.  Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that the were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.

The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election.  The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.

The election is over.  The result is not in doubt.  Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."

I think you're absolutely right. Based on my own "expertise" both as someone who uses the facebook ad system professionally, including its targeting and demographic capabilities, and as someone with 25 years in the marketing and advertising field, I would be comfortable staking my life on the fact that some voters' minds were changed based on what is publicly know about the Russian disinformation campaign.  I can't quantify it, and I can't say that it changed the outcome but I'm 100% confident that it had an effect.  And yet, I would also agree that there's absolutely no basis for calling the election "illegitimate" in practice, even if it was manipulated in various murky ways.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #56 on: July 20, 2018, 05:22:26 pm »

No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.

While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated.  And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.

And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make?  Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.

Florida was always a toss-up.  Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that the were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.

The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election.  The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.

The election is over.  The result is not in doubt.  Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."

Just a couple of comments.

Even if you could prove there was voter fraud, Congress and all of the 50 states have approved the elector count in favor of Trump.  There's no constitutional way of reversing it as far as I can tell.

While Trump won the three "rust belt" states by a total of under 100,000 votes, Hillary should have won those states by over a million votes.  Too bad she couldn't move a million of her spare California votes over to those states.  Similar swings occured in many other states. So it shows there was massive switching of party affiliation.  Democrats who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump so hostile were they to Hillary and the media and political establishments.  "Throw the bums out"  was the montra as much as MAGA.

The polls were not only wrong in Hillary's favor before the election.  The exit polls taken of people who just voted were wrong 5-6% in her favor as well.  People who favored Trump lied to the pollsters so hostile were they to these poll takers and media who also called them "deplorables".  They gave them all the finger. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #57 on: July 20, 2018, 05:35:01 pm »

I think you're absolutely right. Based on my own "expertise" both as someone who uses the facebook ad system professionally, including its targeting and demographic capabilities, and as someone with 25 years in the marketing and advertising field, I would be comfortable staking my life on the fact that some voters' minds were changed based on what is publicly know about the Russian disinformation campaign.  I can't quantify it, and I can't say that it changed the outcome but I'm 100% confident that it had an effect.  And yet, I would also agree that there's absolutely no basis for calling the election "illegitimate" in practice, even if it was manipulated in various murky ways.

"James, I think you're right." concurs Hillary Clinton.  "If it wasn't for the Russians revealing that I had conspired with the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee to control all its political funding and records so I can marginalize that  AARP upstart Bernie Sanders, no one would have known what I did and I would have won the election.  I also want to thank my moron campaign chairman John Podesta who came up with that clever password for his email account to protect it from hackers: P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D. Thanks John." 

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #58 on: July 20, 2018, 05:53:17 pm »

"James, I think you're right." concurs Hillary Clinton.  "If it wasn't for the Russians revealing that I had conspired with the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee to control all its political funding and records so I can marginalize that  AARP upstart Bernie Sanders, no one would have known what I did and I would have won the election.  I also want to thank my moron campaign chairman John Podesta who came up with that clever password for his email account to protect it from hackers: P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D. Thanks John." 

Cute, but you understand that the DNC thing isn't actually a) correct factually; or b) relevant.  My point, (and Chris Kern's, at least in part I think) isn't that there was voter fraud in terms of switched vote counts, but rather that there was a tangible but nebulous "PR campaign" (for lack of a better word) driven by outside forces not that *changed votes* but *changed how people voted.*  That's a subtle, but important difference.  And note that neither he nor I am saying that the vote count was illegitimate.

Carry on.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump III - the daily log
« Reply #59 on: July 20, 2018, 06:04:30 pm »

Cute, but you understand that the DNC thing isn't actually a) correct factually; or b) relevant.  My point, (and Chris Kern's, at least in part I think) isn't that there was voter fraud in terms of switched vote counts, but rather that there was a tangible but nebulous "PR campaign" (for lack of a better word) driven by outside forces not that *changed votes* but *changed how people voted.*  That's a subtle, but important difference.  And note that neither he nor I am saying that the vote count was illegitimate.

Carry on.

Well.  First Hillary said it was Comey who lost her the election.  Then she said the Russkies.  Frankly, I don't think the average voter even today know the info the Russians released regarding the DNC game Hillary played.  So it could hardly effect the vote.  On the other hand, it is true that Comey and the email server was publicized a lot.  But not the DNC corruption.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20   Go Up