The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Let us defund Russia..................
Between US-imposed sanctions and other measures, and the low price of oil, Russia has effectively been defunded already. Russia currently has a GDP that's half what it was two years ago, thanks mainly to the sanctions Trump has placed on them (if Trump is a Russian agent, he's a really bad one). Russia's GDP is about the same as Illinois or Pennsylvania. It lags behind Canada, Texas, Florid, and California. Chicago alone is a bigger threat to our Democracy than is Russia.
That's not totally accurate. The Afgans have switched alliances numerous times over the centuries.
Who Is Responsible for the Taliban?
The roots of the Afghan civil war and the country's subsequent transformation into a safe-haven for the world's most destructive terror network began in the decades prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
This is not a point about Trump or Biden, but about the presence or absence of money in campaigns and its effect.
A few months ago in this thread, some people were talking about how much money Trump was raising compared to the then large number of Democratic candidates. I said that difference would level off after the Democratic field was winnowed to one. And that happened. One of today's headline is "Biden tops Trump with $141 million fundraising haul in June."
While fundraising is often used by pundits as a proxy for voter enthusiasm, candidate viability, and an indicator of the election result. I've always been skeptical of such opinions. It does not always happen that the candidate with the most money wins. It sometimes happens that a candidate with far less money than the well-funded candidate earns from the voters a surprising and huge-upset victory. Sanders made much of the fact that he raised a lot of money from a huge number of small donors. He's out now. Warren made much of the fact that she accepted no money from the wrong kind of donors. She's out now. Bloomberg's fortune dwarfs Trump's and all other candidates. He's now out. Billionaire Tom Steyer spent a ton of money over a long time building his name recognition and brand. He's out too.
Well-funded, poorly funded, or funded in the "right" way, no amount of money protects candidates from making strategic errors, tactical errors or stupid blunders that drive voters away.
Short story: It's true what they say, and it's especially true in political campaigns. Money isn't everything.
A few months ago in this thread, some people were talking about how much money Trump was raising compared to the then large number of Democratic candidates. I said that difference would level off after the Democratic field was winnowed to one. And that happened. One of today's headline is "Biden tops Trump with $141 million fundraising haul in June."
While fundraising is often used by pundits as a proxy for voter enthusiasm, candidate viability, and an indicator of the election result. I've always been skeptical of such opinions. It does not always happen that the candidate with the most money wins. It sometimes happens that a candidate with far less money than the well-funded candidate earns from the voters a surprising and huge-upset victory. Sanders made much of the fact that he raised a lot of money from a huge number of small donors. He's out now. Warren made much of the fact that she accepted no money from the wrong kind of donors. She's out now. Bloomberg's fortune dwarfs Trump's and all other candidates. He's now out. Billionaire Tom Steyer spent a ton of money over a long time building his name recognition and brand. He's out too.
Well-funded, poorly funded, or funded in the "right" way, no amount of money protects candidates from making strategic errors, tactical errors or stupid blunders that drive voters away.
Short story: It's true what they say, and it's especially true in political campaigns. Money isn't everything.
Last edited:
While there is some smoke but no fire yet visible, I'm disinclined to believe this NY Times story. Like so many others, it is based on unnamed sources said to be reliable. I dislike that approach. It requires us to trust the story without knowing what people or facts are actually behind it.
Virtually every day we receive news about Trump being privately upset or outraged or unhinged about something; with that information always coming from unnamed sources. If a man was as frequently and intensely upset, outraged or unhinged as Trump is said to be every day, he'd be dead from stress or locked away in a rubber room a long time ago.
Very true. Money isn't everything. In political campaigns, money certainly isn't a litmus test for who will win. But it is a valid indicator of other things, like candidate viability, enthusiasm, and where voters are leaning. BUt as with everything else, there are exceptions to every rule. Like, Hillary raised, and spent, more than twice what Trump did in the 2016 campaign. And she, famously, lost bigly. But the money she raised was certainly an accurate indicator of her base's enthusiasm. It was through the roof. It was so high that most of her base hasn't been able to get over such a crushing defeat.
Things are muddied more now than ever, because of the third party organizations (like the PACs) who can raise unlimited funds to boost a campaign. That skews most of the things that campaign coffers can be used as an indicator.
Haven't we all learned by now that you need to wait at east 48 hours after any "bombshell" report, for the truth to com out, or at least more information?
Be very, very wary of any news report or article which employs "mind reading," where they attempt to, or worse, factually state they can read the President's mind to know his inner thoughts, his thinking, his feelings. The mainstream media isn't merely rife with mind reading, it's rather rare to find any news piece on the President that doesn't engage in mind reading, And I haven't read a single opinion piece on the President in three years that hasn't used mind reading. And what's both disturbing and absolutely hilarious at the same time is, they'll read the President's mind, then criticize him on what they think the President is thinking.
Mind reading is not just a media flaw. We voters are susceptible to it too. There are many examples of it in this open fourm. One participant will say to the other something like "you say that because you believe..." It is common to say '[Enter Politician's Name of Choice] is did that because he only cares about power and money."
Recognizing the downside of mindreading, the rules of civility and decorum speak against basing a position based on one's presumed knowledge of another person's inner thoughts or motives. The quality and productivity of America's political debate would vastly improve if this rule was more widely known and respected.
Recognizing the downside of mindreading, the rules of civility and decorum speak against basing a position based on one's presumed knowledge of another person's inner thoughts or motives. The quality and productivity of America's political debate would vastly improve if this rule was more widely known and respected.
Oh, I know. We people, citizens, voters, everybody, do mind reading all the time. Unless you're aware of it, and you check yourself against it. Even in Trump's Articles of Impeachment, the Democrats had in there what they thought Trump was really thinking as justification.
People make assumptions about others all the time, usually by mind reading, assuming motives, etc., and they're almost always wrong. Some of them sound absurd when they say them out loud, like earlier today when my breathtakingly Lefty Left stepdad said, "Trump doesn't care about anything AT ALL about lives. Doesn't care if anyone lives or dies. He ONLY cares about getting reelected." My response was, "When did Trump say that?" And he said, "He didn't say itt, but that's what he believes." Uhm, okie.
But the problem with it ALSO being a media flaw is, the media is supposed to specifically not do that. The Ethics of Journalism explicitly say you shouldn't insert your own opinion into a story, nor assume the opinions, thoughts or motivations of others. Yet it's virtually impossible to find a news article about Trump that doesn't contain opinion and mind reading. When readers read these articles (or hear the reports on broadcast media), should keep that in mind, recognize it when it happens, and know they are trying to give you your opinion that you believe to be your own.
People make assumptions about others all the time, usually by mind reading, assuming motives, etc., and they're almost always wrong. Some of them sound absurd when they say them out loud, like earlier today when my breathtakingly Lefty Left stepdad said, "Trump doesn't care about anything AT ALL about lives. Doesn't care if anyone lives or dies. He ONLY cares about getting reelected." My response was, "When did Trump say that?" And he said, "He didn't say itt, but that's what he believes." Uhm, okie.
But the problem with it ALSO being a media flaw is, the media is supposed to specifically not do that. The Ethics of Journalism explicitly say you shouldn't insert your own opinion into a story, nor assume the opinions, thoughts or motivations of others. Yet it's virtually impossible to find a news article about Trump that doesn't contain opinion and mind reading. When readers read these articles (or hear the reports on broadcast media), should keep that in mind, recognize it when it happens, and know they are trying to give you your opinion that you believe to be your own.
This phenomenon is seen in Republican-friendly news outlets too, is it not?
I'd love to figure out a way to refocus media attention on their stated ethics.
Of course it's seen in Republican and right leaning news outlets. Not as much at Fox News during the pure news programs and news pieces on their website. On FNC the opinions and mind reading is mostly not there between 9am-noon, 3-4pm, and 6-7pm. Outside of those hours, they're loaded with it. Of course, those are the news hours, and everything else is opinion shows.
As far as refocusing the media on doing their jobs, I don't think there's anything the consumers of news can do other than not watching or clicking on those outlets, age paying more attention to the reporters who do it right. The business model of news has moved completely away from the Five W's and being honest brokers of the news, to stirring up rage, fear and outrage, and feeding confirmation bias, in search of viewers and clicks.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You don't like Trump. We got that already.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That’s true ... but it sort of misses the bigger point, given Schmidt is calling for a repudiation of the GOP as it’s currently constituted ...
IOW: Drain The (GOP) Swamp !!!
Golly, you found someone else who doesn't like Trump, and then linked to something they said that you agree with. Golly.That’s true ... but it sort of misses the bigger point, given Schmidt is calling for a repudiation of the GOP as it’s currently constituted ...
IOW: Drain The (GOP) Swamp !!!
Schmidt ain't nobody special.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nobody said he was ...
And neither is Trump for that matter.
Actually, I take that back - he owned several casinos ... and still managed to make them non-viable and put them out of business.
That’s quite a feat.
OTOH, “draining the swamp” is something I thought was supposed to be real popular with the MAGA crowd.
