Matthias

Members
  • Content count

    14,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

916 Excellent

About Matthias

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

7,313 profile views
  1. You mean the story that everyone has confirmed? Including Trump while he's standing next to Nehratyu?
  2. Sucking up to isn't respecting. Israel really respects him for burning their Intel.
  3. Turn? That would pick up a few %age points of his supporters that he lost.
  4. Lol @ you calling anyone a partisan hack. People here are horrified and amazed by his policies and contempt for standards, process, and intelligence. They're bemused by the gaffes.
  5. Conservative economic theory is that taxes distort markets and lower overall economic activity, reducing the sum joint economic benefit to society. So by reducing taxes, you diminish the dead weight loss. Tax cuts will pay for themselves is a mixture of voodoo, the observation that 0 * X = 0 and 100 * X = 0 and that there are non-zero points inbetween, and the burning need to cut taxes on the rich and still look fiscally responsible. But even the true, first theory above doesn't work out in practice. Econ theory is a useful lens. Economists trying to talk about real world effects are slightly more accurate than asking the paperboy.
  6. Covering hypocrisy, to the extent that that's all there is, is not serious news. It is news to the extent that it's egregious. E.g., "he wastes so much time and money traveling; I won't have time for that" and then spends every weekend traveling and vacationing (and even then there's some substance as the expense becomes significant and the time spent on the common interest takes a nose dive). And hypocrisy is news to the extent the original criticism was valid. "It's so bad to take money from a foreign power" and then take money from a foreign power. But covering hypocrisy for its own sake, "The President should absolutely not wear a tan suit" and then wear a tan suit should be left to late-night entertainers.
  7. Do you think the donation was motivated to advance the cause or curry favor? Do you think if Trump came out and said, "this really is not appropriate" they would retract the donation? I'll hang up and listen.
  8. Also, she doesn't solicit funds for it? You don't read any real news, do you?
  9. Is there any other fund you would identify her with? Do you think Saudi Arabia donated to it because they decided they want to advance the cause of women? Do you think the Clintons benefited from the foundation in their name? If the Clintons suggested John Podesta found a charity, he did, they promoted it, and then there were massive donations to it while they were in office, the outrage would have been any less? How do you feel about real estate in Florida? I have an excellent excellent investment opportunity available.
  10. When 99.99% of science is against flat earthers, the solution isn't to give them a wider and more visible platform. It's not the NYT who are damaged; it's the guppies who think that it's fake news. If the NYT allows themselves to sink to that level then they truly will have damaged their brand. In a way that won't rub off when this group psychosis passes.
  11. Can you spin out the actual, real politik differences? The World Bank fund was created at Ivanka's urging. As far as I can tell, Ivanka has no personal foundation of her own. Her father's foundation was shut down after the NY AG's office announced it was investigating it. She already tried raising money for her brother's foundation in December before that got press and mothballed. No-one in the Clinton family benefited from their foundation which, by all accounts, spent its money in a legitimate way and causes. The law doesn't actually care whose foundation it is. The Office of Government Ethics may not solicit for any private organization or charity (quaint at this point, but still). This is the level of blatancy in far excess of what was insinuated at for the CGI. At a formal level, you're correct. At a substantive difference your distinction is more misleading than illuminating.