|
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
03-06-19, 08:45 AM
|
#6766 | |||
|
Navy Seal
 Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,772
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
pla•teau noun a relatively stable level, period, or condition a level of attainment or achievement Lord help me get to the next plateau .. |
|||
|
|
03-06-19, 09:55 AM
|
#6767 | |
|
Old enough to know better
 Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Prince Edward Island
Posts: 11,561
Downloads: 136
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
So now we move on to the next big story..“obstruction”. It is going to be hard to take these people seriously after the Russia collusion 'bombshell' reporting but I doubt it will slow them down.
__________________
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke 
|
|
|
|
|
03-06-19, 04:53 PM
|
#6768 | |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anywhere but the here & now...
Posts: 7,507
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
My mistake; I saw the headline in the pic and thought that was the point... Let's face it: the media, of any stripe, will always go with what their audience wants to see/read/hear. If a celebrity does something heinous, then you'll see all sorts of coverage of that story; its just the old "if it bleeds, it leads" news philosophy. During Obama's terms, and during Clinton's terms, the GOP got plenty of coverage for their attacks and criticisms, all via the dreaded and reviled "mainstream media". Trump, whether you like him or not, is the biggest story out there, so that is what you're going to see/read/hear about far more in the coverage... Trump actually is the biggest contributor to the great wash of news coverage; his inane and self-incriminating tweets, his baiting of the media, his manic obsession with being the center of attention, all serve to feed the beast. As far as, negative coverage is concerned regarding Trump, he has given more than adequate grist by his lackings, failings, missteps, and obstinate inability to even consider actually make an effort to establish a stable, sensible administration. The media is not creating Trump's miseries: that responsibility lays squarely on his back. The media did not make Trump make hush money payments, did not make Trump take economic actions that are now coming back to bite him, the media did not make Trump appoint and surround himself with people who are among the worst seen in the White House in modern memory, the Media did not make Trump act like a spoiled toddler. Negative coverage? Well, lets see what has happened under Trump over the last 48 hours: the trade deficit has reached record levels; the budget deficit has increased by 77% and is still climbing; two more Trump appointees (FDA Chief Gottlieb, DOJ Former Acting AG Whitaker) have abruptly left the administration; Trump is likely to lose the Senate vote on his faux emergency; and, Trump's decisions to grant questionable security clearances is again an issue. Nowhere in any of these, and more, of Trump's failings is there any indication any of the media is actually responsible for any of it; although he would probably try to dodge it, the buck actually does stop at Trump (maybe he can tray to claim bone spurs...  )...And trump adds to his own miseries. Bill Clinton was smart enough to just keep mum about the Starr investigation(s) and let it play out; Trump seemingly cannot control his twitter diarrhea nor control his mouth runoff and just provides further fodder (or is is further farther?) for the media: if you don't want the media to quote you, just say nothing and do the job(s) your office entails. That last point has some irony: the Trump camp seems to now be taking the tack of saying the DEMs should abandon their investigations and "just do their jobs". Pot and kettles?... The "non-mainstream" media seems to be in a quandary of their own. Seemingly unable to defend Trump and his minions on their merits, they resort to dragging out the same old whipping boys: "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."... Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's economic policies? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."... Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's foreign policies? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."... Yeah, but what about the failures of Trump's administration appointees and their scandals? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."... Yeah, but what about (insert anything Trump would rather we didn't know about here)? "Obama!! Clinton(s)!! Witch Hunt!! Biased Mainstream Media!!! etc., etc."... No substance, no rational response, nothing; just more of the same old deflections... If negative coverage disturbs, a possible solution may be to just ignore it; a channel can be changed, a page turned. I prefer to look for a source article that gives the most actual detail of the core issue(s) with the minimum of editorializing/opinionation, and go from there just ignoring other articles that just seem to be a parroting of or a cherry-picking of details from the greater source. Then, I a bit of due diligence: I actually seek out opposing articles and see if they can give factual arguments, with backup, to refute the main assertions, also with the minimum of editorializing/opinionation. Then, I do something even more radical: I make up my own mind. I know, I know, its easier to be spoon fed opinions that appear to match one's own, and its easier than actually finding out the actual facts. But when I make up my own mind, its mine and not the dictate of a party, press, candidate, official, or anyone else; its mine an I fully own it and take responsibility for it... Gee, responsibility; if that catches on, we might actually one day have a truly functioning government... <O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __ |
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 04:08 AM
|
#6769 | |
|
Lucky Jack
 Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 25,005
Downloads: 32
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
And the sad fact is, much of the stuff that is reported using anonymous sources for example, is something that is wholly believable when it comes to Trump. Not because of the media painting him one way, but because he has been caught in a lie over and over and over again. If Trump says something didn't happen, there's a very good chance that it did happen. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:38 AM
|
#6770 |
|
Born to Run Silent
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Cougar Trap, Texas
Posts: 21,289
Downloads: 534
Uploads: 224
|
Thanks for the reply, vienna. That was interesting.
Opponents to Trump 2020 (so far) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pote...ry?id=59316177 Remember the Republicans running in 2016? They had so many they had two tiers of debates? Looks like the Dems have their own candidate clown car. Cory Booker (D), a U.S. senator from New Jersey, announced that he was running for president on February 1, 2019.[5] Pete Buttigieg (D), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced that he was running for president on January 23, 2019.[6] Julian Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.[7] John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017. Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.[8] Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was running for president on January 15, 2019.[9] Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.[10] John Hickenlooper (D), a former governor of Colorado, announced that he was running for president on March 4, 2019.[1] Jay Inslee (D), the governor of Washington, announced that he was running for president on March 1, 2019.[11] Amy Klobuchar (D), a U.S. senator from Minnesota, formally announced she was running for president on February 10, 2019.[12] Bernie Sanders (I), a U.S. senator from Vermont, announced that he was running for president on February 19, 2019.[3] Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.[13] She formally announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019. Bill Weld (R), a former governor of Massachusetts, announced that he had formed an exploratory committee on February 15, 2019.[4] Marianne Williamson (D), an author and lecturer, announced she was running for president on January 28, 2019.[14] Andrew Yang (D), an entrepreneur and author from New York, filed to run for president on November 6, 2017. Free money for everyone! I added that last bit but it's true. 
__________________
SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web |
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:58 AM
|
#6771 | |
|
Old enough to know better
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Prince Edward Island
Posts: 11,561
Downloads: 136
Uploads: 0
|
Well if there was any doubt that the left leaning MSM is in bed with the DNC this should put that accusation into clear focus. The Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has announced that Fox News Channel will not be in the running to televise any of its candidate debates during the 2019-2020 cycle.
Quote:
Perez's statement is laughable. As is the case so often what you accuse others of is something you are guilty of. The cosy relationship between Democrats and CNN and MSNBC is obvious. One has to wonder what the DNC is afraid of. Would Fox News people ask questions that the DNC doesn't want asked of their candidates? This is also a mistake that will effect the Dem candidates. What they want and need is a wide exposure for the eventual winner. Shutting out a major news network is denying that candidate that platform. But it also points to a increasingly obvious characteristic of both political parties. They both have allies in the media and they both like an echo chamber to push their agenda. The DNC's decision makes that very clear.
__________________
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 05:01 PM
|
#6772 | |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anywhere but the here & now...
Posts: 7,507
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
In 2016, the GOP had the Clown Car. In 2020, it will be the DEMs with the Clown Car. However, a few points need to be considered that make the 2020 situation for the DEMs different than the 2016 GOP situation... First is the way delegates are apportioned by each party. The GOP has mainly a 'winner-takes-all' setup for the state votes in the Primaries; only a few states have proportional allocation of delegates to the candidates; this means, in almost all cases, the GOP candidate who gets the most votes (not necessarily the majority of the votes) cast in a given state's primary receives all of the delegates from that state at the National Convention; gaming this process is how Trump was able to amass such a high delegate count; in fact, more primary votes were cast for GOP candidates other than Trump, overall, than he actually received... The DEM primary process is very different. The DEMs have a proportional system for their primaries: the candidates get a share of the delegates at the National Convention based on the percentage of the votes, in each state; if a candidate gets 25% of a state's primary votes, they get 25% of the delegates; if they get 47% of the votes, they get 47% of the delegates. Gaming the primaries is a non-issue under the proportional system... There are some exceptions to the 'winner-takes-all' and proportional setups used by the parties in the allocation of delegates, but they haven't really had a marked impact on past primary results and allocations... Secondly, the structure of the Primaries has shifted. The two most populous states, California and Texas are going to be present in the so-called "Super Tuesday" primary date when several states all hold their primaries at the same time; CA had been holding its primaries very late into the primary season, in June in 2016, and the state's impact on the parties' delegate allocation process had been diluted. In 2020, with CA and TX both voting at the same time, and representing, together, about 21% of the US population, their impact could be significant. Added to this is both states are Open Primary states meaning voters can vote across party lines, if they choose. This all means the sort of long term gaming tactics used in 2016 will be curtailed in 2020; if a candidate doesn't make a strong showing in the "Super Tuesday" primaries in 202, there will be no chance to 'make up' for a deficit by hoping for a better showing in CA later in the primary season... California will put the super in 2020’s Super Tuesday primary -- https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/01/23...esday-primary/ Thirdly, there is the nature of the parties' national conventions. For the GOP in 2020, the party might have to back Trump again, if he wins in the primaries (and if he is not impeached and/or resigns) and, again he will have some gaming wriggle-room. A wild card in the GOP situation is the possibility of a large enough segment of disaffected GOP members who might want to try to run a candidate against Trump. The DEMs, with their proportional system, may find themselves facing a floor battle at their convention, if two, or more, DEM candidates split the delegate count with no clear majority... It is going to be interesting, in a couple of years... <O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __ |
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 05:16 PM
|
#6773 |
|
Fleet Admiral
 Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 17,950
Downloads: 37
Uploads: 0
|
@ vienna
"the party might have to back Trump again, if he wins in the primaries" In the history of the US politics, have it ever happened that a party have withdrawn their support to the sitting President ? Not supporting him for a second term in the White House ? Markus |
|
|
03-07-19, 05:28 PM
|
#6774 | |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anywhere but the here & now...
Posts: 7,507
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Not in modern US political history (1900 to date). Found this article that may help to explain how such a situation might work:
Quote:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/18...gop-primaries/ Of the pre-1900 Presidents who failed to get their party's nomination to continue in office, they were all, interestingly, persons who came to office not by election, but by succession when the sitting President died in office: When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination? -- https://www.npr.org/sections/politic...nominatio.html I hope you find this useful... <O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __ |
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:00 PM
|
#6775 |
|
Silent Hunter
 Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,727
Downloads: 11
Uploads: 0
|
Abit OT but I just visited the US the other week, for about a week. (California) San Francisco, and then Yosemite via Methtown (Fresno). So yeah, not one MAGA hat spotted obviously.
Just thought id share what I learned. It takes ages to get anywhere because your country is too damn freaking massive. Your restaurant food and beer is usually  Amtrak is slow but comfortable, spacious, clean and nice staff, so its actually a really nice ride Greyhound is not so hot, - nose pegs required if you sit near the back. Your Uber drivers are better than the UK's. or should I say Korea's, because most of them are Korean in SF. SF was impressive, Golden gate - quite mind blowing, SF has a massive homeless problem. Getting in and out of Yosemite in winter is expensive and suicidal, but completely worth it. Nothing short of bloody amazing. Downtown Fresno.... probably not someplace I want to hang around in for too long (as a tourist) - but not that bad either. You need to export flaming hot cheetos to the UK. Last edited by JU_88; 03-07-19 at 06:10 PM. |
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:17 PM
|
#6776 |
|
Fleet Admiral
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 17,950
Downloads: 37
Uploads: 0
|
@ vienna
Thank you very interesting read. As I understand it has only been one President who wasn't nominated by his party for a second term? That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. The big question is...will history repeat itself..? Markus |
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:49 PM
|
#6777 |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anywhere but the here & now...
Posts: 7,507
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Yes, you are correct. I had meant to note the Pierce exception when I said "all" the pre-1900 President's who were denied a nomination were not elected to office, but I neglected to make that notation; the road to misunderstanding is paved with good intentions and bad notations...
 Could history repeat itself? Depends on Trump's actions in the future and the course of pending investigations; even if he is not formally charged with 'crimes and misdemeanors' prior to 2020 and chooses to stand for re-election, if Trump continues on his seemingly self-destructive course, the GOP leadership may themselves facing an electorate not willing to endure more of the same; there are also a good many in the party who are not keen on casting their lot on such an unstable candidate; they might be inclined to mount a mutiny in the ranks and run a candidate more appealing to the Centrist GOP and Independent voters the GOP will need in order to hold power; Independents now account for more voter registrations than either of the two main parties... <O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __ |
|
|
|
03-07-19, 06:58 PM
|
#6778 | |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,772
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Amtrak is nice and the views of the coast line of California are worth it ... San Francisco has more than a street person problem they even have a millionaire problem.  Flaming hot Cheetos have msg in them read the fine print Thank you for your report
__________________
pla•teau noun a relatively stable level, period, or condition a level of attainment or achievement Lord help me get to the next plateau .. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-19, 07:07 PM
|
#6779 | ||
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anywhere but the here & now...
Posts: 7,507
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Fresno is basically someplace you go through to get to someplace else. Back in the early 70s, I had a brief job co-driving moving vans between SF and LA; the first time I went through Fresno, in the dead of night, I noted to the other driver, more experienced than myself, a building in the center of town that was surrounded by a very large number of women, even at that wee hour. He said the building was a hotel and those were, of course the 'working girls' plying their trade; I remember he called the hotel the "VD Hilton"... Quote:
No, they're all ours, ya can't have 'em... ...and, besides, there are probably laws regarding the export of highly hazardous materials... <O>
__________________
__________________________________________________ __ |
||
|
|
|
03-07-19, 07:08 PM
|
#6780 | ||
|
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,727
Downloads: 11
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Now i don't have a packet to hand as i'm back home, so what i did i miss?, a quick google search and i got something on them turning kids stools red so parents are taking their kids to ER thinking its blood - is it related to that? if so, that's fine, they go too well will beer for me to care  Quote:
 Will send you some marmite Thanks for the Fresno history lesson
|
||
|
|
 |
| Tags |
| biden, clinton, election, harris, obama, politics, trump, twitter |
|
|
Linear Mode
