What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last! (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I skimmed it and missed that part.
You missed it because it was buried. That it was buried is exactly what I thought as I read the piece, and sympathized with your missing that part.

It's all about framing. They could have said "Convicted criminal from Iraq deported to Iraq," but they chose their own lede and to bury the other.

This is why people talk about media bias all the time. The real story is five or six paragraphs in, after the depiction of not only the death, but a description of the political reaction to the death, coming from legislators of the (presumably) heavily Iraq-populated by once-dissident peoples' district. Hardly a revelation.

Seemingly much less important is that he was convicted for a home invasion, served seventeen months (!), and had been allowed to stay. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rod Blogojevick?  Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time.  I wonder why he's Trending this morning. 

(Clicks one link)

Okay I hate everything now.
This seems like a totally normal Presidential Statement and in no way whatsoever totally nutballs. 

“I am thinking very seriously about commuting his sentence so that he can go home to his family after seven years. You have drug dealers that get not even 30 days, and they’ve killed 25 people,” Trump said.

Before his conviction on corruption charges, Blagojevich was a contestant on Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” reality show.

“I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly. He was given close to 18 years in prison, and a lot of people thought it was unfair, like a lot of other things. And it was the same gang — the Comey gang and all these sleazebags — that did it,” Trump said.

 
You missed it because it was buried. That it was buried is exactly what I thought as I read the piece, and sympathized with your missing that part.

It's all about framing. They could have said "Convicted criminal from Iraq deported to Iraq," but they chose their own lede and to bury the other.

This is why people talk about media bias all the time. The real story is five or six paragraphs in, after the depiction of not only the death, but a description of the political reaction to the death, coming from legislators of the (presumably) heavily Iraq-populated by once-dissident peoples. Hardly a revelation.

Seemingly much less important is that he was convicted for a home invasion, served seventeen months (!), and had been allowed to stay. 
So  when you criticized stories that were "egregiously false or completely missing information", what you meant your criticism to be was of stories with "true and relevant information that is absolutely included, but not featured prominently in the article for people who skim and don't read it completely"?

 
You missed it because it was buried. That it was buried is exactly what I thought as I read the piece, and sympathized with your missing that part.

It's all about framing. They could have said "Convicted criminal from Iraq deported to Iraq," but they chose their own lede and to bury the other.

This is why people talk about media bias all the time. The real story is five or six paragraphs in, after the depiction of not only the death, but a description of the political reaction to the death, coming from legislators of the (presumably) heavily Iraq-populated by once-dissident peoples' district. Hardly a revelation.

Seemingly much less important is that he was convicted for a home invasion, served seventeen months (!), and had been allowed to stay. 
And a poster in the ice raid thread said, eh the 2 crimes don't seem all that serious! That is the delusional thinking of the pro illegal immigrant folks. Unbelievable.

 
So  when you criticized stories that were "egregiously false or completely missing information", what you meant your criticism to be was of stories with "true and relevant information that is absolutely included, but not featured prominently in the article for people who skim and don't read it completely"?
I had not read the story yet at the time of the comment you're quoting -- I did read it in another thread. In other words, consider it a comment splice. The second time IK linked to it over in a different thread (he linked to the same story twice), I read it, and that's what I thought must have happened.

Without snark, thanks for seeking clarity on that as it must have appeared confusing. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, things move in real time here and across threads. What looks like contradictory postings or even blatant changes of mind can come about when new information is posted or pointed out. We all have imperfect knowledge at times of events or what the news media is saying. Add the voluntary burden of commenting upon those things in real time, and you're bound to have some mess-ups that wouldn't be okay in a court of law or in the printed word, really. 

 
I had not read the story yet at the time of the comment you're quoting -- I did read it in another thread. In other words, consider it a comment splice. The second time IK linked to it over in a different thread (he linked to the same story twice), I read it, and that's what I thought must have happened.

Without snark, thanks for seeking clarity on that as it must have appeared confusing. 
Yeah, initially I thought they may have updated the article to include the information (as news outlets do sometimes to CYA), but it looks like the latest revision was from last night.  My only thought here was that there's enough justified criticism of the media, that it's not all that productive when the criticism is unwarranted or inaccurate.

 
Yeah, initially I thought they may have updated the article to include the information (as news outlets do sometimes to CYA), but it looks like the latest revision was from last night.  My only thought here was that there's enough justified criticism of the media, that it's not all that productive when the criticism is unwarranted or inaccurate.
Fair enough. I know enough about IK as a poster to know that he's really a measured person, way more so than I am, way more so than the general tone and tenor of the board. That's not fluffery, that's a common observation by many on both sides of whatever debate is going on. 

So naturally I'm willing to run with things a little more, or forgive a little more when there's something hinky as a result.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough. I know enough about IK as a poster to know that he's really a measured person, way more so than I am, way more so than the general tone and tenor of the board. That's not fluffery, that's a common observation by many on both sides of whatever debate is going on. 

So naturally I'm willing to run with things a little more, or forgive a little more when there's something hinky as a result.  
Oh of course.  That's why I didn't give Ivan a hard time other than to point out that the information was included in the article.  Given the reference to the ICE thread, I went over and read it, and it looks like a different article on the same topic was posted there that didn't include the information, so Ivan's point stands.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh of course.  That's why I didn't give Ivan a hard time other than to point out that the information was included in the article.  Given the reference to the ICE thread, I went over and read it, and it looks like a different article on the same topic didn't include the information, so Ivan's point stands.
Oh, okay. I must have come back and read this link then, which was the first link -- I think.

That's how messed up things can get on the board when you're commenting and trying to read and have multiple browsers in real time. One's experience can be wildly different than others. You've been on the board very long and know this. I'm still learning and balancing, and it's been almost seven years that I've participated here 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the heck is OANN? Never heard of it.
A right wing network that the owner pushes staff to speak pro trump, were instructed to be anti Hillary, downplay all Russia stories and be anti abortion.
Trump promotes OANN but never actually seems to watch it. He frequently tweets about things that he's seen on Fox or CNN but I don't think he's ever tweeted about something that he saw on OANN.

BTW, if you want an idea of how far OANN goes to spread fake news: after the 2017 Alabama Senate election, OANN announced that Roy Moore had won by a large margin. :lmao:

 
Why would Sue Gordon resign?
>>Trump was reluctant to keep Gordon, regarding her as part of a career establishment of which he has long been suspicious, according to officials with knowledge of the president’s views.<<

Wapo

It wasn’t her choice. Gordon essentially said in her note she was patriotic and Trump did not want her on his team. She was known for her candor and integrity based on what’s coming out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no bottom. It is a sad combination of raging narcissism and complete lack of empathy.  

Just what you want in a President.  
i don't think he knows what he's doing
He is a sociopath. Sociopaths do not understand human emotions. They're not even capable of experiencing emotions, aside from the most primal anger-related feelings. (This is part of the reason why many sociopaths will mock people who express emotion -- they are projecting their hidden resentment and jealousy.)

However, sociopaths do realize on some level that they must "fake" emotions in order to blend in to society. So, they learn how move the muscles in their face so that it resembles what a smile should look like. That's what we're seeing here.

 
This has been a conundrum for those of us on the "right" from the beginning. The question is not whether the President is embarrassment or odious; in action, in fact, in tact, but rather, whether the hope of unwinding the administrative state through judicial politics, the ignoring of the populace through free market solutions to everything prior to and giving rise to the President, and a questionable tax overseen under him cut is/was worth the future damage to the intellectual and political capital credibility of many of us. 

I am not sure that in fighting and winning the war, we haven't lost the war anyway -- that maybe the war was over long ago.

Just a thought.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure it can all be traced to some sort of sociopathy (but that stuff does not help), I still think that he has some sort of dementia. He is essentially a child being dragged from photo-op to photo-op with little understanding of what is happening. He can hear the words, but he cannot comprehend the meaning behind them. When there was talk of coyotes crossing the border, he thought it was the animal and not the people smugglers, even though context should have made it obvious. With one of the shootings last week it was obvious some handler told him to say something about the cowardly acts of the shooter, but his mushy brain was not able to connect which part of the act was cowardly so he just freestyled about how it was cowardly that the shooter did not kill himself, when the cowardly act was shooting up a bunch of innocent people shopping. You can see older interviews where he is at least able to hold a thought together and string sentences together in a coherent manner, but he seems to have a lot of trouble with that now. It is not like the Republican's don't already have the Weekend at Bernies act down when it comes to propping up mentally degrading politicians. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i don't think he knows what he's doing
You think?

I will give him props this AM for when discussing gun legislation he pointed out that it doesn't make sense that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun but the shooter was able to buy that weapon at 18. He asked a what I think was a Republican if that was being addressed in his new bill and the lawmaker said "no" and Trump responded with, "You know why? You're afraid of the NRA." That was momentarily refreshing. I wish he could somehow accomplish a couple things that are a longterm good for the country so we can at least find one ray of light out this presidency. 

 
It's like literally every day this guy sinks to a new low.  It's as if he's actively trying to get more evil.
Can you imagine growing up and someone showing you this picture of you as a baby with the President of the United States with his smile and thumbs-up. You ask, "oh wow why did he do that? Was I some kind of miracle baby that survived a terrible disease or operation? Did I win some kind of cutest baby in America contest?"

"Nope, your parents were just murdered for no reason in a mass shooting." 

 
The White House has invited tech giants including Facebook, Google and Twitter to a discussion Friday about the rise of violent online extremism, one of the Trump administration’s first major engagements on the issue despite years of warnings that racial and ethnic animus on social media is linked to some of the country’s deadliest attacks.

But President Trump’s own attendance isn’t certain — he’s scheduled to be in New York raising campaign cash — leaving some to question the sincerity of the effort after months during which Trump has chastised social-media companies as his political foes.
Wapo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i don't think he knows what he's doing
You think?

I will give him props this AM for when discussing gun legislation he pointed out that it doesn't make sense that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun but the shooter was able to buy that weapon at 18. He asked a what I think was a Republican if that was being addressed in his new bill and the lawmaker said "no" and Trump responded with, "You know why? You're afraid of the NRA." That was momentarily refreshing. I wish he could somehow accomplish a couple things that are a longterm good for the country so we can at least find one ray of light out this presidency. 
Are you sure you weren't just watching a re-run from last year?

 
More "do as I say, not as I do" from our Commander in Chief on undocumented workers:  https://t.co/WLKqyGqOEk?amp=1
‘If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter’: How a Trump construction crew has relied on immigrants without legal status

OSSINING, N.Y. — For nearly two decades, the Trump Organization has relied on a roving crew of Latin American employees to build fountains and waterfalls, sidewalks and rock walls at the company’s winery and its golf courses from New York to Florida.

Other employees at Trump clubs were so impressed by the laborers — who did strenuous work with heavy stone — that they nicknamed them “Los Picapiedras,” Spanish for “the Flintstones.”

For years, their ranks have included workers who entered the United States illegally, according to two former members of the crew. Another employee, still with the company, said that remains true today.

President Trump “doesn’t want undocumented people in the country,” said one worker, Jorge Castro, a 55-year-old immigrant from Ecuador without legal status who left the company in April after nine years. “But at his properties, he still has them.”

Castro said he worked on seven Trump properties, most recently Trump’s golf club in Northern Virginia. He provided The Washington Post with several years of his pay stubs from Trump’s construction company, Mobile Payroll Construction LLC, as well as photos of him and his colleagues on Trump courses and text messages he exchanged with his boss, including one in January dispatching him to “Bedminster,” Trump’s New Jersey golf course. 

 Another immigrant who worked for the Trump construction crew, Edmundo Morocho, said he was told by a Trump supervisor to buy fake identity documents on a New York street corner. He said he once hid in the woods of a Trump golf course to avoid being seen by visiting labor union officials.

The hiring practices of the little-known Trump business unit are the latest example of the chasm between the president’s derisive rhetoric about immigrants and his company’s long-standing reliance on workers who cross the border illegally. 

And it raises questions about how fully the Trump Organization has followed through on its pledge to more carefully scrutinize the legal status of its workers — even as the Trump administration launched a massive raid of undocumented immigrants, arresting about 680 people in Mississippi this week.

In January, Eric Trump, one of the president’s sons and a top Trump Organization executive, told The Post that the company was “making a broad effort to identify any employee who has given false and fraudulent documents to unlawfully gain employment,” saying any such individuals would be immediately fired.

He also said the company was instituting E-Verify, a voluntary federal program that allows employers to check the immigration status of new hires, “on all of our properties as soon as possible.” And the company began auditing the legal status of its existing employees at its golf courses, firing at least 18.

But nothing changed on the Trump construction crew, according to current and former employees.

A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization said Mobile Payroll Construction is enrolled in E-Verify for any new hires. The company is still not listed in the public E-Verify database, which was last updated July 1.

The company did not directly respond to requests for comment about the legal status of the Mobile Construction workers, but said in a statement that “since this issue was first brought to our attention, we have taken diligent steps, including the use of E-Verify at all of our properties and companies.”

“Those efforts continue and where an employee is found to have provided fake or fraudulent documentation to unlawfully gain employment, that individual will be terminated. Fortunately, among the thousands of individuals employed by our organization, we have encountered very few instances where this has occurred,” the statement said.

The White House declined to comment.

The president, who still owns the Trump Organization but has turned over day-to-day operations to his eldest sons, said last month that he does not know if it employs workers who entered the country illegally.

“Well, that I don’t know. Because I don’t run it,” Trump told reporters. “But I would say this: Probably every club in the United States has that, because it seems to me, from what I understand, a way that people did business.”

Since January, The Post has interviewed 43 immigrants without legal status who were employed at Trump properties. They include waiters, maids and greenskeepers, as well as a caretaker at a personal hunting lodgethat his two adult sons own in Upstate New York. 


 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You think?

I will give him props this AM for when discussing gun legislation he pointed out that it doesn't make sense that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun but the shooter was able to buy that weapon at 18. He asked a what I think was a Republican if that was being addressed in his new bill and the lawmaker said "no" and Trump responded with, "You know why? You're afraid of the NRA." That was momentarily refreshing. I wish he could somehow accomplish a couple things that are a longterm good for the country so we can at least find one ray of light out this presidency. 
For some reason we had on news in the background on vacation and evidently he followed this brief refreshing with comments about the racist movies coming out of Hollywood and the problems they pose.  

 
You think?

I will give him props this AM for when discussing gun legislation he pointed out that it doesn't make sense that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun but the shooter was able to buy that weapon at 18. He asked a what I think was a Republican if that was being addressed in his new bill and the lawmaker said "no" and Trump responded with, "You know why? You're afraid of the NRA." That was momentarily refreshing. I wish he could somehow accomplish a couple things that are a longterm good for the country so we can at least find one ray of light out this presidency. 
This was part of the original argument for his election. He might buck both sides and might actually get things done. 

The truth is he is not actually in charge of anything. He is "in charge". I can't think of much he has done policy wise that would put him in the maverick zone. 

Just like Gover norquist said they just need someone with an opposable thumb to sign what was put in front of him. That's what they got.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top