'Journalists' Seek 'Safe Space' To Discuss "How To Cover Trump"

davesmom

Council Member
Oct 11, 2015
2,084
0
36
Southern Ontario
Why shouldn't Trump Twitter if he wants to? It just upsets people because other Presidents haven't done it. Well things change. Social media is taking over the news industry and TV, radio and the press don't like it.
By using Twitter, Trump get his message directly to the people In his own language without the commentators screwing it up.
Get over it, FGS!
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Why shouldn't Trump Twitter if he wants to? It just upsets people because other Presidents haven't done it. Well things change. Social media is taking over the news industry and TV, radio and the press don't like it.
By using Twitter, Trump get his message directly to the people In his own language without the commentators screwing it up.
Get over it, FGS!

It is a major, stupid thing to to blurt out whatever catches your fancy at 5:30 in the morning. The power and responsibility of the Presidency seems to be utterly beyond you.

Wadda pokah playah!!
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Why shouldn't Trump Twitter if he wants to? It just upsets people because other Presidents haven't done it. Well things change. Social media is taking over the news industry and TV, radio and the press don't like it.
By using Twitter, Trump get his message directly to the people In his own language without the commentators screwing it up.
Get over it, FGS!
You portraying the image you do, I can see where conflicting messages are in your comfort zone. I prefer open honesty and less schoolgirl theatrics as foundation to communication.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Trump's troubles would be closer to over if he'd stop the juvenile antics on Twitter
Who reads twitter?
The only way to get alerts on his tweets is to follow him....
Anyone that don't like him? don't follow him...
I don't get a single email alert from Twitter....because I don't follow anyone...
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Why shouldn't Trump Twitter if he wants to? It just upsets people because other Presidents haven't done it. Well things change. Social media is taking over the news industry and TV, radio and the press don't like it.
By using Twitter, Trump get his message directly to the people In his own language without the commentators screwing it up.
Get over it, FGS!



I think it's great; this way, 'the people' can see what incoherent and completely ridiculous things he tweets in real time.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,520
9,602
113
Washington DC
I know it's contrary to the current obsession with flipping out over everything the loudmouth grifter says, but maybe we should see what his team does (and anybody who thinks the Presidency is a person rather than a large organization with plenty of room for independent decision-making at the second, third, and fourth levels is a fool).

I think he's the most unfit person ever to be elected to the post. But when you sort through all the garbage, there's some key issues there:

Illegal immigration. It is a fundamental attribute of statehood that the state has the power to say who may come and who may stay. Clearly we cannot deport the 11-12 million illegals in the U.S., and equally clearly we need a coherent policy, which we haven't had in decades. The emerging Republican theme from all the chest-thumping and arrant nonsense is "deport the ones who have committed crimes, strengthen the border, then decide the standards for whom we will let in and whom we will let stay, and under what circumstances." It's a debate and a policy that's long overdue. I hope it includes my favorite: make it too costly and risky to employ illegals. That is the single most effective tool to slow down illegal immigration.

Trade deals, NATO, etc. In the wake of WWII, we deliberately shouldered the burden of the defense of the so-called free world, and tried to steer wavering countries into our camp by providing them trade deals that were bad deals for us, allowing them to gouge us in return for their loyalty. Whether that was a good idea or a bad idea is water over the dam. Times have changed, and we have succeeded. The so-called "First World" is solid and prosperous, our dominance is not nearly so great. So it's time to reel in a lot of the freebies and benefits, and put things on a more equal footing. Of course our "friends and allies" will scream like stuck pigs. Nobody wants to give up a benefit, however outdated or undeserved. But our tactic succeeded, and I say if you want to cozy up to Russia or China, good luck with that.

Health care: I never liked Obamacare. The goals were three: full coverage, lower costs, and comparable outcomes. Obamacare didn't even pretend to do the first, made very little dent in the second, and merely maintained the status quo on the third. Overall grade from me: D. We can do better. Have the states do health care. Single-payer, Obama/Romneycare, conservative tax-incentive based programs, mandatory insurance schemes, or just flat out donating health care to those who can't afford it (Wisconsin concluded that was the best choice for Wisconsin's particular mix of needs and resources). Try 'em all, then compare the outcomes. Obamacare was never anything but a guaranteed profit for insurance companies scheme.

The Middle East is a swamp where good intentions, and even good plans, go to die. Go hard on DOUCHE, go hard on Iraq, go hard on Iran, go hard on Afghanistan, whatever. There are no good options, and anything remotely resembling "victory" is simply impossible. We'll muddle through as best we can, as we always have, reactive, forceful, passive, some mix of all the above. The only alternative (of which I approve, but which I recognize ain't gonna happen) is just pull out and let 'er buck.

Jawbs. The car factory employing ten thousand men at good wages has gone the way of the fletcher, the cooper, the cartwright, the sawyer, and the dodo. Ain't coming back. End of. Even if every single "jawb" is brought back to the States, that factory will now employ four hundred men (half of whom will be women), the large majority of them will be college-educated, and their jawb will be supervising the robots. Tariffs are stupid, they never work, they always hurt, and they ain't gonna happen anyway, no matter what the jawboning loudmouth wants.

So endure, and see what happens. The First Lady is mighty easy on the eyes. Focus on that. Get real familiar with the "MUTE" button on your TV.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
The one thing I do not understand is, why, in the US, is it such a terrible thing to enforce immigration laws? I've wondered that for a decade or more.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
The one thing I do not understand is, why, in the US, is it such a terrible thing to enforce immigration laws? I've wondered that for a decade or more.

RIch liberals want the cheap help. Well probably not just the liberals but they pretend it is to help the poor.Mostly they want the poor to stay poor so help is cheap.
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,198
113
Illegal immigrants are modern weapon - like the idea that a wounded soldier is more expensive to an opponent then a dead soldier, unarmed illegals can be used to destroy nation states so the globalist pizza people can take over the whole enchilada...

There are some 35 million illegals in the US now, and despite the gun behind every blade of grass, they are in, and sucking the system dry, and voting to make it even more accessible

Look what happens where the voter ID laws are struck down...
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I know it's contrary to the current obsession with flipping out over everything the loudmouth grifter says, but maybe we should see what his team does (and anybody who thinks the Presidency is a person rather than a large organization with plenty of room for independent decision-making at the second, third, and fourth levels is a fool).

I think he's the most unfit person ever to be elected to the post. But when you sort through all the garbage, there's some key issues there:

Illegal immigration. It is a fundamental attribute of statehood that the state has the power to say who may come and who may stay. Clearly we cannot deport the 11-12 million illegals in the U.S., and equally clearly we need a coherent policy, which we haven't had in decades. The emerging Republican theme from all the chest-thumping and arrant nonsense is "deport the ones who have committed crimes, strengthen the border, then decide the standards for whom we will let in and whom we will let stay, and under what circumstances." It's a debate and a policy that's long overdue. I hope it includes my favorite: make it too costly and risky to employ illegals. That is the single most effective tool to slow down illegal immigration.

Trade deals, NATO, etc. In the wake of WWII, we deliberately shouldered the burden of the defense of the so-called free world, and tried to steer wavering countries into our camp by providing them trade deals that were bad deals for us, allowing them to gouge us in return for their loyalty. Whether that was a good idea or a bad idea is water over the dam. Times have changed, and we have succeeded. The so-called "First World" is solid and prosperous, our dominance is not nearly so great. So it's time to reel in a lot of the freebies and benefits, and put things on a more equal footing. Of course our "friends and allies" will scream like stuck pigs. Nobody wants to give up a benefit, however outdated or undeserved. But our tactic succeeded, and I say if you want to cozy up to Russia or China, good luck with that.

Health care: I never liked Obamacare. The goals were three: full coverage, lower costs, and comparable outcomes. Obamacare didn't even pretend to do the first, made very little dent in the second, and merely maintained the status quo on the third. Overall grade from me: D. We can do better. Have the states do health care. Single-payer, Obama/Romneycare, conservative tax-incentive based programs, mandatory insurance schemes, or just flat out donating health care to those who can't afford it (Wisconsin concluded that was the best choice for Wisconsin's particular mix of needs and resources). Try 'em all, then compare the outcomes. Obamacare was never anything but a guaranteed profit for insurance companies scheme.

The Middle East is a swamp where good intentions, and even good plans, go to die. Go hard on DOUCHE, go hard on Iraq, go hard on Iran, go hard on Afghanistan, whatever. There are no good options, and anything remotely resembling "victory" is simply impossible. We'll muddle through as best we can, as we always have, reactive, forceful, passive, some mix of all the above. The only alternative (of which I approve, but which I recognize ain't gonna happen) is just pull out and let 'er buck.

Jawbs. The car factory employing ten thousand men at good wages has gone the way of the fletcher, the cooper, the cartwright, the sawyer, and the dodo. Ain't coming back. End of. Even if every single "jawb" is brought back to the States, that factory will now employ four hundred men (half of whom will be women), the large majority of them will be college-educated, and their jawb will be supervising the robots. Tariffs are stupid, they never work, they always hurt, and they ain't gonna happen anyway, no matter what the jawboning loudmouth wants.

So endure, and see what happens. The First Lady is mighty easy on the eyes. Focus on that. Get real familiar with the "MUTE" button on your TV.

So what are your main beefs with trade with Canada? I can think of some. First, Canada needs to stop privileging its 'Canadian-content' media and agricultural supply-management. Open Canada up completely to US media and agricultural products.

Secondly, it needs to open its borders more to US workers so as to expand Canada's labour pool. That last point might seem counter-intuitive, but if I'm a business that wants to be able to access the widest choice of workers, then I'd rather move to Canada where I still would have full access to the US labour market than to the US where I would have access to only the US labour market.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
So what are your main beefs with trade with Canada? I can think of some. First, Canada needs to stop privileging its 'Canadian-content' media and agricultural supply-management. Open Canada up completely to US media and agricultural products.

Secondly, it needs to open its borders more to US workers so as to expand Canada's labour pool. That last point might seem counter-intuitive, but if I'm a business that wants to be able to access the widest choice of workers, then I'd rather move to Canada where I still would have full access to the US labour market than to the US where I would have access to only the US labour market.

Thirdly, we need to run a better flag up our flag poles with more colors on them than just red and white. We should add blue! ... and red stripes! ... and fifty one white stars !!! Could be huge!