Trump's Tax Plan

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

So, clearly most Americans will see more money after the new tax plan is implemented. Now the democrats (outside of the coastal strongholds) need to convince America that more money in the billfold is a bad thing. I guess you will go with the jealousy/rich don’t pay their fair share?

[VectorVictor]

1 minute ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

So, clearly most Americans will see more money after the new tax plan is implemented. Now the democrats (outside of the coastal strongholds) need to convince America that more money in the billfold is a bad thing. I guess you will go with the jealousy/rich don’t pay their fair share?

 

Oh look...he can't handle the salient discussion points, facts, and citations brought to him, so he has to create a strawman to knock down. Bless his heart. 

[zoogs]

There is an enormous cost to the loss of public resources and to exacerbating inequality. Among them will be the inability to defend the helpless from the rapacious nature of power and greed. The costs are not merely fiscal but also social, and will be borne by everyone. We're all in this together, in the end.

 

It's funny that you talk about fighting for Americans, when your worldview is at its most fundamental one where a large portion of them -- indeed, the most downtrodden -- deserve whatever they get.

[VectorVictor]

4 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Did you?

 

I'm still waiting for him to try and explain how Abraham Lincoln permitted Confederate monuments to be built well after his death. 

 

 

[NM11046]

23 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

What terrible things has Mr Bannon said?

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

9 minutes ago, FrankWheeler said:

 

Somehow it worked for me...?

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/15/13625168/steve-bannon-explained

I looked at a couple of the links vox provided. I have no issues with what he actually said in context with what I looked up. They sounded much worse until I checked a couple of the links. 

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

10 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Well, to be fair, there's only so many ways one can put a positive spin on a prospective president bragging about grabbing women by their privates, and Brietbart and Fox News already covered them.  

Well Trump never said he did grab anyone. Further he said he could. That means consent due to his celebrity. Much like a rock star and a groupie. 

[zoogs]

"Yes, I value this country and it’s citizens first and foremost and have dedicated my life, to date, to the protection of both. "

 

I think the first and most obvious amendment to this farce of a statement is to add a "male" modifier to "citizens".

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Well Trump never said he did grab anyone. Further he said he could. That means consent due to his celebrity. Much like a rock star and a groupie. 

   You are beyond shameful in your blind support for Trump.  Sounds like a good candidate for the brown shirts gang.

 

I just found this discussion going on and was going to just do a as I had nothing more to add until I saw the above.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Well Trump never said he did grab anyone. Further he said he could. That means consent due to his celebrity. Much like a rock star and a groupie. 

 

Just like Harvey Weinstein...right?

[Danny Bateman]

21 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

 

Counterpoint:

 

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

 

Quote

In this study, we analyze both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election. We document that the majority of mainstream media coverage was negative for both candidates, but largely followed Donald Trump’s agenda: when reporting on Hillary Clinton, coverage primarily focused on the various scandals related to the Clinton Foundation and emails. When focused on Trump, major substantive issues, primarily immigration, were prominent. Indeed, immigration emerged as a central issue in the campaign and served as a defining issue for the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.

 

Attempts by the Clinton campaign to define her campaign on competence, experience, and policy positions were drowned out by coverage of alleged improprieties associated with the Clinton Foundation and emails. Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs, and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.

Figure 1: Number of sentences by topic and candidate from May 1, 2015, to November 7, 2016

Figure 2: Number of sentences by substantive topic and candidate from media on the open web

 

TL;DR: Coverage of both candidates tended to be negative, but Trump coverage was significantly more issue-focused, whereas Clinton coverage was significantly more Foundation/Benghazi/email stuff.

I wonder why Trump got a pass?

[Danny Bateman]

23 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

So, clearly most Americans will see more money after the new tax plan is implemented. Now the democrats (outside of the coastal strongholds) need to convince America that more money in the billfold is a bad thing. I guess you will go with the jealousy/rich don’t pay their fair share?

 

This is going to be significantly aided when Paul Ryan and his ilk come knocking for Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security next year. Or try to repeal healthcare law again.

 

Coupled with the general incompetence of the GOP at the moment, do you understand how easy a case that will be?

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

22 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Oh look...he can't handle the salient discussion points, facts, and citations brought to him, so he has to create a strawman to knock down. Bless his heart. 

Ahh so a post regarding the subject of the thread is a “straw man”.  Lol!!!

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

5 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

Counterpoint:

 

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

 

Figure 1: Number of sentences by topic and candidate from May 1, 2015, to November 7, 2016

Figure 2: Number of sentences by substantive topic and candidate from media on the open web

 

TL;DR: Coverage of both candidates tended to be negative, but Trump coverage was significantly more issue-focused, whereas Clinton coverage was significantly more Foundation/Benghazi/email stuff.

I wonder why Trump got a pass?

Reading your excerpts does not prove that the coverage is negative. While the scandals, particularly the email were negative, there were some articles that sought to mitigate the damage and minimize the significance of her actions. Would these articles be included here?

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

12 minutes ago, zoogs said:

"Yes, I value this country and it’s citizens first and foremost and have dedicated my life, to date, to the protection of both. "

 

I think the first and most obvious amendment to this farce of a statement is to add a "male" modifier to "citizens".

Sweet! Implied accusations of misogyny! Thank you!