What are
/r/AskTrumpSupporters'
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/AskTrumpSupporters:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/AskTrumpSupporters:
The New York Times
NPR News
CNN
Scribd
HuffPost
Merriam-Webster
The Motley Fool
Microsoft Bing
The Guardian
Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases
ResearchGate
Healthcare.gov
Rumble
The Weather Channel
MarketWatch
The most popular VPNs mentioned in /r/AskTrumpSupporters:
The most popular reviews in /r/AskTrumpSupporters:
Actually, yes: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3528/3528-h/3528-h.htm#link2H_4_0008
In the On His Own Works section he gets pretty technical.
And he's able to discuss it at length because music is a subject that Beethoven was passionate and exceedingly knowledgeable about. Is there an example from Trump that demonstrates mastery of a subject?
> No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back)
How is fighting back not obstruction?
Also: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/trump-comey-russia-thing/index.html
> President Donald Trump has said he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he decided to fire FBI Director James Comey,
Pretty open-and-shut, no?
I consider myself both, and as far as America goes I think there isn’t as big a difference between the two as you might think. What makes America different from the rest of the world is that it’s a nation with a people, and not a people with a nation. Most European countries are associated with a group of people, ie Germans in Germany, Swedes in Sweden, Turks in Turkey, etc. America is based on a creed, not an ethnic group. And the fact we haven’t always lived up to that creed doesn’t mean it isn’t good. In the sense described here:
>“exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
I would consider that a reasonable summation of my views. Is that not what was meant by “America First”?
Edit: and this is hardly a minority position either. Most Americans are some type of nationalist, per WaPo.
Edit2: There’s a good book that’s been written on the subject, I haven’t had the opportunity to get all the way through it yet, but it’s very good from what I’ve seen so far: https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Nationalism-Yoram-Hazony/dp/1541645375
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/jimmy-carter-racism-baptist-conference-unity-donald-trump.html
"He said that Republican animosity toward President Obama had “a heavy racial overtone” and that Donald J. Trump’s surprisingly successful campaign for president had “tapped a waiting reservoir there of inherent racism.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/16/jimmy-carter-racism-barack-obama
He doesn't explicitly say that, but it's implied any criticism of Obama is due to race and not policy.
just fyi this is the first time I heard of this and decided to do my own search.
> Hell no. I’m white male christian. There are people that want my head.
Who?
> What genocide are we talking about ?
The only current genocide I know of is in Myanmar, but world genocides aren't really something I keep track of.
This is data from Donald Trump for President, Inc., which is public knowledge. Not from DNC books...
Here is that actual email that this spreadsheet was attached to. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10880
DNC was simply keeping tabs on their opponents financial position.
I believe it's illegal to forcibly deport a US citizen, so you'd first have to revoke their US citizenship. Since this is almost impossible, I don't see that there's a question to debate here?
On what grounds would you revoke US citizenship? Bear in mind that the Supreme Court has recently made it even more difficult to do this.
The process also happens in federal court where—until denaturalized—the defendant has all the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. The cost alone of pursuing these cases would be astronomical for the government.
It's a bad idea to even try.
>it sounds unlikely.
Why does it sound unlikely? That's precisely the case.
1:45 UTC would be 4:45 AM in Russia (in this scenario July 13), and 9:45 PM EDT in the US (on the previous day, in this scenario July 12)
All terrorist attacks since 9/11 are done by people already in the country.
https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/
That means the ban would have not stopped any of them. The recruiting takes place online, radicalization happens without movement across borders. This does nothing to stop that.
The previous administration (who's intelligence you are using the justify the ban) already decided the best course of action in these areas was to continue vetting with more caution, and no attacks have taken place since.
Edit: This is the real problem we are facing. Everyday people spreading violent ideals and recruitment information among clubs and unofficial organizations. This radicalization happens within the country.
Trump on Climate change:
>REPORTER: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?
>TRUMP:I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?_r=1
This book covers the topic pretty exhaustively and finds many are motivated by factors other than religion...foreign occupation for example:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400063175/103-6875448-6296639?v=glance&n=283155
Do the ones covered by that book count?
>CNN has polls out saying Trump’s approval rating is in the 20’s and 30’s.
Source? Quick google gave me a poll from May 2018 when they polled 41%
>Bernie Sanders tells me 97% of scientists believe climate change is killing us all.
That depends on your definition of "killing us all" but I'm fairly sure he didn't mean:"it's literally killing us now".
>A majority of the country disagrees with all things Trump!
Depends on the issue of course. It's not possible to disagree with someone on everything until you know their position on everything.
Unless they said the majority disapproves of Trump which is a fact (unless Reuters currently has him polling above 50% I'm not sure? I know they tend to poll higher than most other polls)
>When 90%+ of the stories about POTUS are negative I think a term other than “unbalanced” needs to be used.
Because CNN has a partisan bias in the stories they run does that mean their actual news is fake?
There's a difference between favoring negative news and actually FAKE news, right?
And btw, even Fox polled Trump at 45% approve, 51% disapprove in June and said his highest approval rating yet was at 48% in February 2017.
each of those things will make contraception, family planning, and abortions more difficult to get.
You may personally be against abortions, but you should also know that lack of family planning and contraception would likely increase the number of abortions. Easy access to contraception, a required service from healthcare providers due to the ACA, is positively linked to a decrease in abortions.
Edit: some links: ACA on contraceptions: https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/
abortions at a historic low, linked to access to contraception: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html
Basically, there are some states or local councils that outlaw certain rainwater collection methods due to a possible passive impact on the environment. I think these are generally meant to regulate farming activities but they do affect people in regular private homes as well. Generally just things that you might want to do, but then find out they've been outlawed for some strange reason and they leave you scratching your head and staring at an empty rainwater bucket.
Here's a good article from accuweather that goes over some of the stricter states. This obviously isn't a big ticket item for me or anything, it's just a bit of a microcosm of this kind of thinking.
> immediately following the summit he said something to the effect of "Six months following this summit I might turn around and say it was a waste of time"
Don't you think you're cherry picking that quote a little? Trump actually said:
> "I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey I was wrong.' I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse."
He's openly telling you that if he's humiliated on the DPRK issue, he'll lie about it to his supporters with "some kind of an excuse" rather than admit that he got played. Doesn't it look to you like "What did I do, really ... We didn’t do anything" is an excuse for why nothing has been achieved post-summit? He left Singapore triumphant, declaring the North Korean nuclear crisis over and touting it as one of the greatest diplomatic achievements in US history; but now his attitude is 'we gave nothing, we got nothing'?
> looks like a bit of 4-D Chess to me
Uurgh. Disgusting.
But if the founders believed majority rule immoral and chaotic, why are elections decided by majority vote? I've read pretty extensively about the founding, and the founders, so I can do without the patronizing tone. A good starting place for you might be Plain, Honest Men, by Richard Beeman. See, you're conflating pure democracy with majoritarian rule. In our constitutional republic, we elect representatives via majority vote to make law on our behalf. Those representives collectively make law, again via majority vote. While there are limits to legislative authority found in the first 10 amendments, it's also true that large enough majorities (of both the popular and legislative varieties) can repeal those limits, though the framers recognized the gravity of doing so and devised a process to seek the ratification of a massive chunk of the country in order to do so. Don't get hung up on the semantics. Stray quotes expressing skepticism about democracy just reflect 18th century elitism.
Remember that time that ISPs wasted/pocketed $400 billion in government grants that were suppose to be used to update our infrastructure with faster fiber optics?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394
They've had plenty of opportunity to "invest' in infrastructure. They just don't want to and, in fact, have sued to stop others from building infrastructure that could compete against them.
My concern with the repeal of net neutrality rules, is that big ISPs can effectively choose what I see while using their networks. I think we can all agree that the internet is a vital source of information and tool for its dissemination. In many areas of this country there's one ISP available. If that ISP doesn't want you to see something, the repeal of net neutrality has given it the right to block that from its customers view.
Sure. Just be aware that this discussion has been going on forever. I remember this thread from a while back which had a few good options:
https://slashdot.org/story/03/12/05/163243/gerrymandering-by-computer
One of the links (Still works!) from that thread that has some stuff I like. http://www.westmiller.com/fairvote2k/in_prop.htm
Of course both parties have been in a position to reform the system and instead have shown they would rather twist the system to benefit them.
A 1991 book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
> That's not true. I've already fact checked. Give me a source.
what source did you use to "fact check" this statement?
There were two lawsuits filed, one filed a few months ago (and dismissed because the plaintiff asked for some fees to be waived or something, and didn't qualify), then the most recent one filed less than two weeks ago.
Here is the second one. The last few pages are an affidavit from a witness, "Tiffany Doe." She claims not only to have procured adolescent women for Epstein, but to have personally witnessed both Trump and Epstein raping the defendant multiple times.
If "Tiffany Doe" is a real person (the lawyer who filed it would be in deep shit if that's not true), and she was in fact Epstein's employee at the time of the alleged rapes, and if she's willing to testify to what's in her affidavit, it's a big deal.
But that bump is a marginal tax rate. For example:
You make $10,000 this year. You pay 20% tax, so you send the fed $2,000 and take home $8,000
You earn $15,000 next year. The marginal tax rate is 30%. So you send:
First $10,000 x 20% = $2,000
Next $5,000 x 30% = $1,500
Total tax bill: $3,500
Total take-home: $11,500
You didn't make any less money on the base $10,000 in profit.
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2015/07/17/what-is-my-marginal-tax-rate.aspx
Does that make sense? Have I missed something?
men are more violent than women and men support conservatives / trump more, liberals / obama less, so it stands to reason that more real death threats (or at least aggressive actions) are going to come from conservatives / trump supporters, on average. conservatives are also likely to be more ethnocentric, and there is a link between ethnocentrism and aggression. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sezai_Ozcelik/publication/270959851_The_Study_Of_Ethnocentrism_Stereotype_And_Prejudice_Psycho-Analytical_And_Psycho-Dynamic_Theories_Journal_Of_Qafqaz_University_24_Fall_2008_ss_236-244/links/54bac03b0cf29e0cb...
> But chances are Reddit would likely be too small to be regulated, compared to Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc. Reddit is very small.
Reddit is the 5th most visited social network, globally, and #4 from US visitors. [Source]
What would the cutoff point be? Like, how can Reddit be too small but Instagram isn't when they're that close?
Does this impact any positive views you may have had for Jared Kushner?
HuffPost: Manafort Sought Trump Job For Alleged Briber; Eager Kushner Responded: 'On It!'. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jared-kushner-paul-manafort-stephen-calk-bribe-indictment_n_5ce76bdfe4b0cce67c8838d8?ncid=NEWSSTAND0001
Wait, what's misleading about it? The link from u/GregFo31 just goes to a page with the header
>Russian Hacking in the U.S. Election
>Complete coverage of Russia’s campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
It doesn't say "Russia hacked the election;" in fact, one of the stories from the top row is this one, which goes into quite a bit of detail about what actually occurred. I don't see anything implying voting machines or whatever, and I think the coverage looks pretty nuanced.
What do you make of this?
>In the past, if your insurance company found that you’d made a mistake on your insurance application, they could:
> * Take away your coverage > * Declare your policy invalid from the day it started > * Ask you to pay back any money they’ve already spent for your medical care
> It’s now illegal for insurance companies to cancel your coverage simply because you made an honest mistake or left out information that has little bearing on your health.
Or maybe this?
>Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.
>The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.
You can call Trump out and not be fake news like MSNBC. They are rather liberal and that's fine it's their choice. The difference comes when you make stuff up or constantly publish unverifiable crap daily from unnamed sources that ends up being false 2 days later. The WaPo has basically become a glorified blog that will publish any rumor that it happens to pick up on. WaPo and CNN I think are the only 2 that really deserve the tag. Presidents need opposition, Obama had none from the media except Fox whom he called out constantly. Trump can't even go have dinner without it becoming a national scandal.
It also really doesn't help that the WaPo was recently caught using chinese bots to drive up it's traffic numbers. Went from 3% a year ago to 60% of their total traffic.
Isn't it bad faith to support your argument by dropping huge documents and not specifying pages? If you're confused, read this whole book I'll link below.
https://www.amazon.com/Making-Argument-Work-Applying-Strategies/dp/0072976616
Second, your census data doesn't support your claim in its entirety because it doesn't count Jews as a race (see Page 4 and 5 of the Census link). The Pew research is focusing on Jews as a religious demographic rather than a racial/ethnic demographic, so that's a bit comparing apples and oysters.
> It could just be that they’re endowed with skills that are more economically productive
Hypothetically, what might these forms of 'endowment' take which would make Asians and Jews more economically productive? You must be open to these possibilities since you suggested them. Again, doesn't this demonstrate that race plays some role in terms of income inequality? It would be an astronomical coincidence if a statistically significant number of Asian and Jewish workers turned out to be better workers in proportion to whites due to sheer chance.
I just want to take this opportunity to post that abortion rates are at a historic low, with ACA increasing access to contraception (https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/) likely a part of it, which is being repealed.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html
Access to family planning, increased access to contraception, Planned Parenthood, easier and cheaper access to child care would all also decrease the rates of abortion (and likely also decrease the amount of welfare provided to families not ready to support a child), but these are all things the republican party is against.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/31/12-big-pharma-stats-that-will-blow-you-away.aspx
I think that's got some interesting gems in it.? I like this one quite a lot: >Developing a new drug costs pharmaceutical companies around $2.6 billion on average... By comparison, the average cost to develop a drug in the 1980s was around $413 million.
What did I overstate about Russian support of Hezbollah? Here is a link. Russia backs Iran, Iran funds Hamas. That the Hamas connection. Russia supports Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I haven't got a link but it's documented pretty good in this book.
Russia did warn us about Tamerlan that is true. I like that. I live in Boston. That shit happened literally on the street I live. and he killed a cop in front of my girlfriends work. so, they were right about him. and thanks to them and fuck the FBI for ignoring the russians on Tamerlan
Transaction >something transacted; especially : an exchange or transfer of goods, services, or funds
Do you think merriam-webster is wrong?
Do you support the Library of Congress’s recent decision that they can legally retain a game’s local and server code for preservation purposes or do you think that is an overreach?
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?_r=0
>WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.
You know how anonymous sources work. Their identities are known to the newspaper, but the newspaper doesn't release the identities to the public.
1) Gawker
2) Sources for both are actually the same book written by a guy who worked for Trump 30 years ago. There is no evidence to back up Trump having said either one of those things. There isn't even a link to the text of the book - just an Amazon link so you have to buy the book to even verify it with your own eyes.
"I confess, Webb Hubbell is Chelsea's real father" ~Hillary Clinton Source: https://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Access-Agent-Inside-Clinton/dp/0895264064
Are you aware of the definition of nepotism?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism
>favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nepotism
>patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics
How many other cabinets even had family members besides like two?
This is Khan's glowing review on "Human Rights in Islam" in which he praises Brohi’s interpretation of human rights including the right to kill and mutilate those who violate Islamic laws and even the right of men to “beat” wives who act “unseemly.”
https://www.scribd.com/document/320016178/Khizr-Khan-Human-Rights-Islam
More importantly is the fact that Hillary is using the family of a dead soldier (whom she is likely responsible for killing) killed by extremist Muslims (whom this man condones).
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing (but that's the liberal MO, isnt it)
https://www.scribd.com/document/320016152/Khizr-Khan-Juristic-Classification-Islamic-Law The fact that he defends Shariah law does not help his cause whatsoever. This guy's son was a hero, he on the other hand, is a disgrace.
Add the 187 google employees to that
And the 76 Microsoft employees.
It's not easy to work at Google or Microsoft, these are undoubtedly extremely intelligent people and it's honestly unfair to turn them away, especially when they've already been vetted.
Nothing hostile yet, got a "cool I get it man" response. I wish I were still in college, some guys made a shirt to show support in a fun, rivalry fashion that's getting lots of attention as the semester starts soon.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/ It is, but another part of science peer review, which the Weather Channel did, https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change
> Why is that naive? What private entity can legally take money from you by force?
There's a presumption among republicans that the private sector and free market function as perfectly fair and equal ways of resolving pretty much every economic issue which ignores the influence of things like greed and racism.
Wrt your comment about force, the wealty can exploit the poor. Supposedly that's exactly what manufacturing companies have done in the rust belt and in developing countries. They never use force because the government wouldn't let them and they have more effective methods.
I can argue the reverse, what billionaire helps the unemployed, funds the military, health system and education all while helping the poorest for virtually nothing? I would imagine few do. The government does.
> "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman is a good place to start. "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan is solid if you want to take a deeper dive.
I was wondring more why do American republicans think the way they do. I never see the same deification of the wealthy outside of the republican party. I'm not sure if it's due to the absence of any established nobility in the US as in Europe or down to the persistencce effort by the wealthy to convince rural voters.
You have heard about Uranium One? Pretty direct right there.
Alright, accepting that we aren't already secure, what do you think of situations like this? With the amount of radicalization happening within the US borders, do you believe our greatest security concern is people coming in from other countries? All the terrorist attacks came from citizens or permanent residents since 9/11. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an outreach program to de-radicalize members of these small organizations?
> Even if the Russian hack didn't help Trump at all, they stole private information from American citizens
What private information?
> provided him with millions in illegal foreign campaign assets and hacked the voter rolls, and possibly the voting machines of at least 7 states. It was a criminal attack on our democracy and almost tantamount to an act of war.
OK, let's declare war on Russia then! :) BTW, what does this have to do with Trump again? While we're at it, let's declare war on China also, they too hacked the election.
> Do you think cheating is only wrong if it ends up helping you win?
You said that it helped him win, and I quote you: "they provided material illegal aid to help him get elected." What's the empirical evidence that it did help him?
> If you are looking for evidence though, the section of the Mueller report on GRUs activities point out that a: they said internally their goal was to help Trump
Great, but back to my question: what's the empirical evidence that they actually helped Trump win?
Volatility is high on trade war fears, which hurts companies that rely on exports - which has a large overlap with the manufacturing base of the DOW index.
The DOW is a pretty outdated metric, and Trump is wrong to use it as evidence of the economy's success. S&P500 is much better, and I think the NASDAQ is quickly becoming even more important given it's focus on tech.
Here's an article on the differences in the measurements.
Additionally, we haven't seen a flat line in 2018. We saw the DOW hit an all time high, then correct back down. Just because we're at the same number now as we were in late 2017 doesn't mean there hasn't been significant market movement.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29/neoconservatives-declare-war-on-donald-trump/
From this article I'm gathering that Trump does give a shit. He puts it all in very positive language (stronger military, better fighting) because that's a better sell. But the specifics of his plans are a lot more interesting than the slogans. For ISIS, if I recall correctly he wants to cut off their funding -- that is, the Saudis!
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281651628
I know you didn't actually look at my source because what you said doesn't have anything to do with my source... The paper I cited is a meta-analysis of psychological experiments where subjects are basically in a first-person shooter game and are aiming to gun down bad people but not shoot good people. If the target is black, they are both much more likely than white targets to get shot by the subject, and the subject also shoots at them more quickly.
Before some say this is somehow a one-off experimental BS - the results were MEDIATED by the strictness of gun safety measures in the states where the experiment was held (more gun safety in the state, less likely the subjects from the state are biased to shoot black people). And again, this was a meta-analysis, so numerous experiments substantiate this finding.
My tinfoil hat? That claim is part of the intelligence community report (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc).
>They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html
The human rights council is run by the UN and it's 47 member states, not just the Saudis.
Are you really just flat out denying the existence of the anti gay law, as well as the political assassinations? These things are fact.
Heres a russian source confirming the existence of the anti gay propoganda law:
https://www.rt.com/news/nobel-laureates-putin-gay-592/
Political assassinations:
This is a russian article confirming the assassination with then other sources confirming Putin was behind it.
And then are you just denying the fact that Aleppo has been bombed for months? It's common knowledge lmao. Are you russian or something?
What is racism? is a good question to ask racists, who unilaterally support this president.
>I don't know how common this tactic is on the right
The right have made a cottage industry out of reporting on and mocking every word ever uttered by Democratic lawmakers like Ilhan Omar and AOC. For years. And that's when they're not beating Dems over the head with blanket statements like "you support riots" or "you want to destroy America".
Books like this one have been bestsellers among the right for the last 20 years. Fox News has had a stable of popular hosts who strawman everyone left of Reagan to hell and gone every night of the week since the late 90s.
How could you possibly miss this?
Thanks for that. Although close reading shows that he approves of a man who wrote a book that approves Sharia law. Not quite the same thing. And have you read what he actually wrote about the book: https://www.scribd.com/document/320016178/Khizr-Khan-Human-Rights-Islam
He says that the book successfully argues these points theologically. It's far more academic than this article gives it credit for. In fact, I'd go so far as to say this article deliberately reduces Khan's comments to overly simplistic and out-of-context statements. But then again, it's Breitbart. You must admit it's not exactly a great source.
Would be interested in your response to my other two points!
>something transacted; especially : an exchange or transfer of goods, services, or funds
So yes, if you hand your daughter $5, a transfer of funds has occurred.
With your misunderstanding of the definition of transaction, do you then agree inheritance should be a taxable transaction?
Russia has been moving border markers in Georgia, and they tried to do this as well in Estonia. A strong military presence is required to stop this. The threat is not Always an invasion, sometimes it is border creep. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/24/world/europe/in-russias-frozen-zone-a-creeping-border-with-georgia.html?_r=0
>Lol Democrats don't outnumber Republicans 2:1, that is Democrat propaganda
Twice as many Democrats voted for Clinton as Republicans voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Are these statistics fake?
> California could easily split into 3 states
Easily? Lol.
I'm aware of Tim Draper's petition to get 'Cal 3' on the 2018 ballot. I doubt the people would vote for it and I double-doubt that the state legislature will allow it. But hey, anything's possible in today's political climate.
>and create 4 new Republican senators
Okay, I'll bite. Out of curiosity I tallied up the 2016 votes, county-by-county, cast for Trump and Clinton from the two proposed states, 'SoCal' and 'NorCal', as a proxy for the number of Democratic and Republican voters that will populate each state. Fair warning, the numbers will make you shit your pants.
SoCal would have 14 counties. The results are 54% Democrat, 46% Republican.
NorCal would have 38 counties. The results are 68% Democrat, 32% Republican.
I can't be bothered to tally up the numbers for the third state 'California', but 100% of the counties went for Clinton so I assume the numbers are comically Democratic.
It looks to me like the Cal-3 plan will produce a new Democratic super-state with 6 Democratic US Senators. Congressional Republicans would have a heart attack if Cal-3 passed in 2018. Do you still think it's a good idea?
I'm definitely not, but for the sake of discussion, the people who are paid to defend him are arguing for an appeal.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/27/us/bill-cosby-appeal-prison-time/index.html
I suppose there are people out there that would think it's wrong that that unverified claims against him from other accusers were allowed to be used against him?
Also, the legal merits of the case aside, do you think his age should be taken into account when looking at sentencing? I suppose we could compare him to another heinous figure of a similar age, Joe Arpaio, whose age was partly used to justify his preemptive pardon to stop him from serving jail time?
The documents are in limbo until proven otherwise. Like you said, it's not proven that they're true either. And to be clear, I'm not saying that America should entertain every conspiracy theory - pizzagate is evidence of what a shitshow that can be.
However the fact that McCain handed it to the FBI already lends it more credibility than a child pornography ring. Whether the dossier is accurate is still to be determined. I have to commend reputable news outlets for stressing that these claims so far are unsubstantiated. All we can do is wait for the FBI to review and make an assessment on the document.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-intelligence-report-explainer.html even has unsubstantiated in bold lettering
1), 3) That's great, I'm glad to hear people pitched in to help those people. I'll happily withdraw that example. How about all these? They are not all hoaxes, man. My point isn't that everyone on my side is a perfect angel and everyone on your side is a raging dick. I'm saying there are assholes on both sides, and to say the entire left is nothing but fascists is just incorrect, just like me saying the entire right is racist. It's not true, and to go around saying it is is counterproductive at best, deliberately inflammatory at worst.
2) That is not what fascism means.
You're right it wasn't during the campaign that's my mistake. It was before his confirmation (which is still illegal) and he did talk about sanctions (source). He also lied about it which is super shady. And the people on the Trump team with Russian contacts were fired only after it became public that they had connections. You think Trump didn't know Carter Page's or Manafort's background before he hired them? Does he not vet people before giving them positions involving national security?
Are you sure about that? How do you respond to those who say that those with more education are more liberal/progressive and that conservatives don't have facts and data supporting them and that they have an anti-intellectual strand?
Polling. Aggressive oversampling.
This is like going to a dog park and asking people "Do you like dogs?"
Aggressive oversampling is exactly why you got these types of things during the general election: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0 http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president
It's absolutely dishonest and no one with a real understanding of polling takes these polls seriously.
Unfortunately as you can see on /r/politics people buy this stuff hook line and sinker on a daily basis.
I believe in Climate change.
Trump seems to be in between, but certainly doesn't believe it should impede business.
>REPORTER: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?
>TRUMP:I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html?_r=1
Again, clearly a different thing (also, never mind that we do subsidize agricultural products, and Republicans are all for that...). Eating healthy food or not is a choice that everyone makes: no one is suggesting that we force everyone to eat healthy food, even though it would lengthen their lives. But everyone should have a chance to live: if you need to take medicine every month to stay alive, that medicine shouldn't cost $5000 a pill when it costs $1 to make just because pharmaceutical companies know they can charge whatever the fuck they want because you have to buy it.
Edit: Like the whole thing with Daraprim, which was jacked up to $750 a tablet (from $13.50), despite the fact that high school students were able to synthesize it for $2 a pill.
Thrown out the first time because the plaintiff requested a fee waiver they didn't qualify for. Now filed in New York. Trial starts 9/9.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/12206367/Doe_v_Trump_et_al
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits
The affidavits from the plaintiff and the alleged eyewitness are at the end.
You're thinking of the California filing. That was dismissed. Here's the one being discussed here, filed in New York:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/12206367/Doe_v_Trump_et_al
If the plaintiff and the alleged eye witness aren't real people then the attorney who filed this (Thomas Francis Meagher) is risking disbarment and possibly prison. I doubt he's willing to risk that over something that would have a 100% chance of being discovered as soon as he goes in front of the judge.
We are importing hundreds of refugees at the moment to communities all over the US. Clinton wants to import another 65,000 Syrian refugees... a problem she started by the way: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
Trump doesn't want to ban Islam. He doesn't want to put people into concentration camps. He doesn't want to deport Muslims.
He wants to stop the flow of immigrants from countries with a history of terrorism against the US, which happen to be Muslim countries. Muslim US citizens from those countries would still be allowed.
Immigration has always been a privilege. The left views it as a right. The moment we lose sight of that, we take for granted the generosity of the country providing it.
It's not a blanket action, it's not even a punishment. Framing it in those terms reeks of bias and spin.
Edit: Also I'm not foregoing the homegrown issue. I'm pointing out that there may be an indirect link.
>I am glad they aren't on the travel ban list
Considering that <em>literally millions</em> of people cross the US-Mexico border every single year, wouldn't you agree that banning travel is logistically impossible?
I agree we should not fear Islam but simply recognize that it's not compatible with mainstream Western values and seek to exclude it and those who practice it from our society.
Edit: 0.00% of British Muslims find homosexuality to be acceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality
His net favorability among women is -30 and among men is -10. That's pretty low.
Winning a nomination is a whole different ballgame than winning the general. For example, in 2008 38 million and 22 million voted in the D and R primaries respectively. source
125 million voted in the general.
Trump himself said today that he read the full document after he was briefed.
>TRUMP: OK, first of all, these readings as you know are confidential, classified. So, I’m not allowed to talk about what went on in a meeting.
>And — but we had many witnesses in that meeting, many of them with us. And I will say, again, I think it’s a disgrace that information would be let out.
>I saw the information; I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It didn’t happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know, because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents that got together — sick people — and they put that crap together.
I mean, he does. His list of favorite rappers rap about social problems, not killing people in the streets. With this statement, I feel like you just haven't been paying attention.
Compared to Canada yes, but not so much other UHC countries
> considering how much people hate the two candidates, this is not a normal election
You're just too young to remember. This is Ronny Ray-Gun all over again. Only Trump's landslide victory will be more spectacular.
I have been amused for many months now at how people keep underestimating Trump -- precisely as they did Reagan. Reagan was a joke, right? Some B-movie actor trying to play President.
How the hell could some goofy TV personality be president? And yet he did. A pretty popular one too.
1987: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall." -- Ronald
2016: "We're going to build a beautiful wall." -Donald
Look, believe what you want to believe. Discard whatever information you want.
We used to have the "HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES": http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee.aspx
I think a similar thing could be applied to the islamic preachers without infringing on freedom of speech. Trump has also talked about shutting down ISIS's ability to communicate from their territory, and suggested that he knows that saudi arabia is playing a role in radicalizing in the west, through funding. Sounds like he wants to take all measures within presidential power.
No idea if this works but I bought it for my brother in law as a gag.
>Is a $200 pen like exponentially better than the nicer gel pens? Why do these exist?
In the spirit of this sub, I will answer your question with another question. Is a $10,000 Rolex watch exponentially better than a basic analog $50 Fossil watch? I'm not much for watches, but I can tell you that most pens that come out of a pack are mass-produced crap. The ink will dry out or congeal at room temperature, or the ballpoint mechanism will fail, or worse--leak. To directly answer to your question is that I've never had a well-maintained "fancy" pen fail me. On the other hand, every single type of "nicer" pen I've used has prematurely crapped out on me.
I am a believer in the principle that you get what you pay for, and that goes as much for mechanically crafted pens as it does for watches. And like a watch, a lot of the value in a pen is how it looks, and how you feel using it. I'm an attorney, and I used to do a lot of estate planning work. I found that using a "fancy" fountain pen for signing client documents definitely adds value to the whole client experience.
If you ever use a pen in front of others, it's a great conversation piece. If you're interested in a good starter fancy pen that's not terribly expensive, I'd recommend the Lamy Safari fountain pen. They make for great gifts, and I myself have bought several. If you ever become a legit pen nerd like me, you can go out and buy a converter and bottle of ink.
The Capital doesn't disappear though, it's put to productive use that earns a return that is overtime repatriated back to the USA or added to the host countries capital stock.
It seems to me that you have a very mercantilism understanding of trade which is very outdated. Adam Smith provided a critique of mercantilism in his pioneering work "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776.
Admittedly I screwed up some specifics of the capital outflows, America is actually a capital importer most of the time because foreigners love to save their money in US banks. The basic idea is still there.
I don't think this is a gotcha question. It only was for Palin because she decided to answer, "All of them!" and then looked like an idiot.
My last 3 are The Art of the Deal, The Millionaire Next Door, and Catch-22.
Yeah, and I think grandiose people doing grandiose things is a tough premise to sell supporters on. There are plenty of relentless "climbers" who also attempt to acquire wealth and status insatiably. Many of these people are not pathological narcissists; plenty are. Now, Trump possesses a couple other red flags too: he's immediately charismatic, makes an excellent first impression - but the effect wears off over time.
I think if you were to really try to make this assertion, you would want to focus more on his lashing out. OP mentions it in passing, but his aggressive need to preserve his ego integrity and immediately belittle the source of any potential cognitive dissonance to me is the hallmark of NPD. It doesn't matter whether the source of criticism is on his level (a political or business competitor), the news media (Megyn Kelly), or a Flint pastor ("she looks like a nervous mess"), he has to eliminate the interference.
There's also a strong case to be made that Trump is an extremely high Self-Deceiver. High self-deceivers possess the ability to react to stimuli that prove their assumptions wrong, but they do so more slowly and are less likely to challenge cognitive dissonance. In the experiment, a gambling game in which returns were reduced over time highlighted a rift between those who could accept this information and those who continued to pursue the reward despite increasing evidence that they would continue to lose money. From the abstract: "These findings support a model of self-deception as ignoring evidence of error and reinforce the argument that self-deception may be maladaptive." Coupled with NPD, not only is trump incentivized to ignore evidence that he may be wrong (preserving ego integrity), but he may be neurologically predisposed to do so more slowly.
>Lost HC insurance: This is a bit more tricky, but I defend his statements on this. Medicaid is massive under Obamacare but results in no real coverage in many cases (having the card doesn't mean providers actually accept it, and in many cases [growing numbers], they don't). Reducing Medicaid will reduce numbers of those who are 'covered' but not necessarily those receiving care.
Can you find any sources supporting this? Consumer reports thinks Medicaid is great. I find good evidence that it improves educational outcomes. I know a lot of doctors don't take medicaid, but lots do, and that's what really matters.
As those present at the start of the war on drugs clearly state it was engineered as a way to target minorities and politcal dissidents (CNN), does that bring any context to my question?
edit: My "data is complex" comment was not intended as hand waving the need for facts to back up claims - I am not the poster who made those claims and I wasn't intersted in backing them up. It was a way to segue from a very dense topic of policing as a whole to a particular topic that has data and statements showing a very race-based foundation - that is to say, the war on drugs.
> Also factor the possibility millions of fraudulent votes
I've yet to hear anything verified beyond a couple dozen votes at most. Reliable Source?
I'm not contesting he won, just that 'solidly won' is a bit of a stretch considering he had about average electoral college results and the worst popular vote deficit ever (by absolute) or 3rd worst ever by %
Sorry, I didn't mean to get across the idea that they were complaining that the room was bigger. I'm trying to say they were complaining that it wasn't in the white house, that it overturns decades of protocol.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/business/media/trump-white-house-press-corps.html
I brought up the bigger room because that's why Trump wanted to move them.
The Republicans had planned to vote to repeal, then over the next couple of years work on the replacement while ACA wound down.
Trump made it very clear to the Republicans that both must happen at essentially the same time, and now the Republicans are working on both.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/repeal-affordable-care-act-donald-trump.html
>Then you need an individual mandate so that people don't abuse the system.
Republicans are advocating separating patients into high risk pools managed by the states to separate them from the rest of the market, and implementing continuous coverage provisions that allow insurance agencies to charge consumers more for coverage if they lapse.
The mandate wasn't working as intended anyways, as millions of people opted for the penalty instead of buying insurance or were exempted because they were too poor to afford even the cheapest subsidized plans anyways.
You're wrong from the get-go.
> After years in the public eye in New York and nationally on TV, only now are we hearing anything about "sexual assault"?
Jill Harth filed a lawsuit accusing Trump of sexual assault in 1997. She recently reiterated the accusation.
...and if the victim makes a police report, which many rape and sexual assault victims do not. Read the complaint and you might get an idea of why she didn't:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits
I believe the issue of Recission is one which the ACA solved. It used to happen if the costs became too excessive.
I believe the market itself didn't strongly react against these companies because it was somewhat rare, although still possible. I wondering what a free market solution to this problem is?
Takata airbag recall, I am surprised you haven't heard of it. If you own a car made between 2002 and 2015 you will most likely receive a post card in the mail stating that you have an open recall with no date on when it will be fixed. It affects cars ranging from the cheapest Honda to the most expensive Ferrari.
"Vehicles made by 19 different automakers have been recalled to replace frontal airbags on the driver’s side or passenger’s side, or both in what NHTSA has called "the largest and most complex safety recall in U.S. history." The airbags, made by major parts supplier Takata, were mostly installed in cars from model year 2002 through 2015. Some of those airbags could deploy explosively, injuring or even killing car occupants. (Look for details below on waits for replacement airbags.)"
>What are the mechanisms for this? Explain how this will come about and what the result will be.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/power-vacuum
Once an authority loses its power, that empty space is filled. Often by the 2nd strongest authority. In this case it would be corporate authority.
>Ah, so you did go stockhold syndrome on me...
Tiresome insult that means nothing because you have nothing to actually say here.
>Governments just tax them and the people inside of them. You seem to believe that a government is a net contributor.
And the citizens elect the people who operate within the government, and thus control who writes the tax laws. What's your point?
>This is not the case, the government takes away from net contributors, you may think it's necessary but you're not making a good case to prove it.
A Democratically elected government is the focal point to public power, which acts as a counter point to private power. Society does not "take" from net contributors. Because without society, there is nothing for contributors to profit off of. Why don't YOU try to explain how an economy can function without a governing body regulating them.
Just so that I'm clear on your perspective, do you believe that the third sense of the word "racism" here is wrong?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Let's say two people commit the same act of racial prejudice that targets black people. One of these people believes black people are inferior to white people, on account of their race. The other does not hold this racist belief, but feels they are acting on very reasonable statistical observations. The effect of the racial prejudice is the same. Is one of these acts more wrong than the other, or more or less deserving than the other of outrage?
> They also use clickbait titles and appeal to a very small segment of the population.
That doesn't mean that they're less legit tho. They're ranked 31 in the US on Alexa, and BuzzFeed is ranked 73 and they're tanking hard!
> They're also racist and sexist.
That's just false... a number of their staff is Jewish, gay, black, and so forth. If they were indeed racist/sexist, then why would they hire staff that's not straight/white?
> One, this part of the thread was not about PewDiePie, it was about this Sargon guy.
Sargon is reporting on PDP, which is why PDP is in this conversation. I'm merely pointing out that if you want to get your facts from somewhere, you can either get them from WSJ or you can get them from the source (i.e. PDP). Sargon is just a proxy, you can skip him if you like.
> Two, the WSJ has a physical paper as well. So that 80 million does not fully represent their viewership.
Nearly half of their audience is online, so at best, they're 60 million viewers above PDP. That's hella bad for a news corporation worth "billions."
> Third, PewDiePie's audience consists of a large demographic under the age of 16.
... viewership is viewership, is the success of a media company diminished due to their demographics? If so, Disney is garbage compared to the WSJ.
> Four, his format is video. Easily digested.
That's something WSJ should learn from.
> Five, the WSJ has maintained their success for 127 years.
Except last year, when they started tanking: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wsj.com
> Six, why are we even talking about this? This was about some Sargon guy
Sargon was talking about PDP in his video, this is why I brought him up. If you don't like Sargon as the source, then go directly to PDP's channel and figure out what they did to him. #fakenews strikes again!
Are you the one from New Zeland?
Did you forget this? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/new-zealand-police-shooting-siege-ends-after-22-hours
I know it was 2 months ago.
AU? Australia? Did you skip this? http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/03/shooting-gun-free-australia-leaves-least-two-dead/
>If we keep letting people in, their home country will NEVER get fixed. It removes all political pressure on their home country to improve.
The population of Honduras is 9.5 million and it grows every year. The US accepted 2,205 applications in 2017. This is a tiny tiny percentage of the Honduran population (~0.02%), do you honestly believe that it makes any political or economic impact on the country?
>Even if she does have to leave, why does she have to come here? Can’t she go to Mexico? Brazil? Argentina? Canada? Why the US?
I'm sure many do go to Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. Canada not so much because they'd have to pass through the US to get there and we'd just arrest them on site. Would you be in favor of allowing refugees to travel through the US to Canada in order to claim asylum?
> I guess I'm not really interested in killing people for something abstract like 'sovereignty'.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereignty
If this doesn't seem like something worth killing over then what does?
I greatly, greatly question your math. Please...$4000? no.
Most of the actual labor involved in making an Iphone is actually automated. How many 10$/day laborers work in china making an Iphone? do you know? I dont, but my guess is a big fat zero.
There are a billion other variables you are ignoring. How much more efficient will the production of iphones be? How much less money is lost from corruption? You are forgetting that prices and bottom lines of a large corporation involve millions of things.
You seem to be under the impression that you understand markets and production costs as well as someone who wrote their phd dissertation on it. I personally feel some doubt about your expertise.
let me share this bizarre fact with you i learned like 4 years ago....its pretty much a perfect demonstration about how global markets with china and export of labor actually does not necessarily help us save any money...sometimes its cause by simply absurd global market forces: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/why-are-we-importing-our-own-fish.html?_r=0
> On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the airbase that was home to the warplanes that carried out the chemical attacks, US officials said.
I even have a nice and unbiased source for you: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/donald-trump-syria-military/index.html