If you previously registered on VGF XenForo boards, you will need to use the forgot password feature in order to be able to post here. If you do not receive a password reset by e-mail, use the contact page or post in registration/login help.

First Presidential Press Conference Only to Release Lies, More to Come

Moderators: Deku Tree, I am nobody

Locked
User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:45 pm

My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1620589, member: 25415 wrote:Nobody voted for Trump because he was actually qualified for the position. You can't say that they did because he has no prior experience. Even worse, his cabinet reads like a list of major players in the corporate disinformation racquet.[DOUBLEPOST=1485863570,1485862956][/DOUBLEPOST]
You really sound like you need a history lesson. If you want it broken down for you: Dictator used to be a general term. It is a position in government enabled by 'temporary' law. Dictators are usually granted extensions of power beyond the authority of any normal position, legally or by declaration of emergency. You get those by causing panic and then claiming to bring order. Perhaps you're only interested in sources which identify as conservative? Easily done. In the words of Conservapedia.com:



There have been many warning signs. The false threat of rising crime is one of them about which Trump frequently lies. So is themyth about the threat of foreign terrorism. Do you think it is now difficult to find evidence of autocratic behavior?

At this point it's either very bad that he is grossly incompetent, or it's the first step in something much worse. I am not content hedging my bets that he has good intentions when his cabinet choices, fear-mongering, and personal record are more than enough. Screw waiting for something to get worse whether he intends it or not.
The Office of Legal Counsel said the ban was legal. That is their job to determine.
The Department of Justice lawyers' jobs is to issue legal supporting arguments for executive orders.
Sally Yates, who was carried over from the last administration, admitted that in her letter then took it upon herself to tell the lawyers not to defend it because she personally didn't personally agree with it and found it may be illegal, which again isn't her job to determine.
Their job is to defend it, imagine if you were assigned a defense attorney and they just decided "Eh **** it he's guilty"
It is not their job to determine the legality, it is their job to defend it in courts where it is being challenged.
So no there was no overreach here, Trump was FULLY within his constitutional rights to fire her, for the same reason you would fire a defense attorney who won't actually defend you.

Also as far as qualifications go, Trump had talked about running for decades, Oprah Winfrey suggested the idea that he was making "Presidential talk" on her show decades ago because he was giving deep thoughts on the economy and foreign affairs, but ignoring that even, What are the qualifications to run for president?

Qualifications for the Office of President
  • Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
  • No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
    Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
  • No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

Unqualified, psh.

Trump just proves you don't have to be loved by the political establishment like Hillary was to be able to legitimately stand a chance at winning when running for the presidency.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 22956
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃

Post by X-3 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:58 pm

Indeed. All you need is money, a R by your name and the ability to beat the drums of jingoism every day.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:13 pm

[QUOTE="Marilink, post: 1620566, member: 23215"]Trump's rhetoric about the media is incredibly dangerous. He has effectively succeeded in convincing [edit: many of his constituents] that critical thinking skills, fact-checking, and legitimate journalism are completely useless. That's terrifying to me. What Trump says about the media is just pushing people away from seeking objective facts and further relying/flocking to just pure confirmation bias.[/QUOTE]


So, I take it you believe Fox News never skews their "facts" for political gain and for making catchier headlines?[DOUBLEPOST=1485915216,1485914362][/DOUBLEPOST]Anyway, I don't think I'm gonna respond here anymore, this place is obviously a political echo chamber
[QUOTE="CaptHayfever, post: 1620597, member: 25169"]You can "maintain" whatever the heck you want, but that hardly matters when somebody who helped draft the order explicitly says it WAS.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"[/QUOTE]

Alright it's his word against multiple people's words who were involved it, but you know what FINE

A better way to word this for those of you here arguing this,

If Obama made the list (which he did) then the the questions then become. "Do you think former President Barrack Obama was an Islamaphope? and Did he only included Muslim countries on his list of threats because they are Muslim?"

If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Barrack Obama is an Islamaphobe then you MIGHT have a case for this. Otherwise everything that has been brought up is just circumstantial if not outright biased fantasy projections of your oppositions being "T3H ULTIMAAT3 EV1L"

Either way I doubt I'll respond even if you try to make an actual argument.
This is obviously a pointless discussion because it exists in a political echo chamber where noone can be convinced of anything and everyone believes their own opinion is the ultimate troof so we'll just e doomed to repeat ourselves, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree at this point.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12646
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Contact:

Post by Random User » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:35 pm

"Political Echo Chamber" Wat

Just because people disagree with you doesn't make it an echo chamber.

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 40061
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: MY TOE! MY TOE!
Contact:

Post by Marilink » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:49 pm

So, I take it you believe Fox News never skews their "facts" for political gain and for making catchier headlines?
...what?
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
CaptHayfever
Supermod
Posts: 36805
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:00 am
Location: (n) - the place where I am
Contact:

Post by CaptHayfever » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:31 pm

I mean, at least we've already all agreed that it was a piece of crap, just for different reasons.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:57 pm

Honestly, guild/vgfian, you seem to have lost track of the talking points here. I don't mean to sound overtly hostile, although all of this happening in the span of a few days has definitely got me on edge. I was planning to re-enter the US soon.

You haven't really addressed the simple fact that Islam-derived terrorism is not a very pressing concern, all you have to do is check the numbers. Every politician keeps up the song and dance of it, but you should be inherently suspicious of any of them who act as though it is a constant and immediate growing threat which requires increased vigilance. There are things worth our attention, which actually affect people, but have less certain political results. "Extreme vetting" already existed. Violence is at an all-time low. Folks like Marilink and I frequently find cause to disagree even though we are capable often of calling a duck a duck. I won't blame you if you back out of this now, the terms aren't at all what you apparently expect them to be. By your actions, you expect me to present a partisan-style opinion. I really only care about the facts which are not being addressed.

You're not disagreeing with me about his 'qualifications' but rather disagreeing with my use of that specific term. Being of legal age necessary to hold the office is a requirement, it does not guarantee you are qualified or if you prefer different wording, it does not imply that you have any history of competence in the position or are familiar with the rights of the people.

Would you honestly expect Trump to base executive orders on no existing structures of the office, within his first week? That is apparently what you desire to suggest. Let me tell you, there is a difference between using a keyring to open a door and using one as a make-shift defensive weapon. There is a difference between using a hammer to pound nails and using it as a paper-weight. You can use all kinds of things outside of their intended purpose.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... er-9717520

Whether or not it's based on a list that the state department drafted does not mean it was done this way. People already have pointed this out, it is obvious enough that you could have concluded it yourself. You keep moving the goalpost, or even just re-using these ideas which are demonstrably false equivalences. It's very tedious for me, I'm not surprised that you don't have any enthusiasm for continuously moving it.

As much as I will disagree with you, with IRHP, wth Shane; with Kargath, Kilimanjaro, and still others, and as much as many others are inclined to agree with me and feel it is their responsibility to express that, I would not say that this is an echo chamber at all. I have some of the reins, yet you are still allowed to speak. You could prove yourself right at any time, if facts and thinking favored your ideas. You don't seem very dedicated to convincing me of anything and you are picking fights over your presumptions - yes I provided a 'conservative' link because I felt that it might hold more gravity with you if the source was verifiably non-partisan, as apparently you've pegged me as exclusively part of the opposition party. Rather, I look first at verifiable truths and historical records, and I choose my opinions largely afterward.

Occasionally I argue things like caution with the medical community and how things like 'mandatory vaccination' pose extreme health risks to a minority group. I dislike collectivism to the extreme, we need a government which recognises that all of our goals and interests are not singular no matter how much we share. I am interested in politics catering to my needs specifically, not just those of whichever other minority interest is currently getting the short end of the stick. At times you've spoken to me about the presumptions you've made of my character and my interests. I do agree that people are too easily offended, but I also care about the cause. If it's that you're offended you're been told you're offensive, toughen up and get a real problem. This border-security is a BS special interest which does you personally no bloody good, and you are turning a blind eye to what actually affects you personally. Me personally, I would like not to be harrassed to take off my shoes and pants and do a dance for a chubby guy in a blue shirt every time I want to get on a plane. I would like moreso to not needlessly have to come to the defense of my black, muslim, native american, trans family members when they were doing nothing differently from the rest of us. It is a waste and they have been pushed around for no reason beyond looking wrong for their entire modest lives.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:26 am

Trump has already reneged on another of his few actually decent campaign promises:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... tion-drugs
A lot happened in the 2016 campaign, but one of the things Donald Trump did to win the election was shift to the left on a number of key issues — promising to avoid cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits and adopting a longstanding Democratic pledge to let Medicare negotiate bulk discounts in the price it pays for prescription drugs.

Today, after a meeting with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives, he abandoned that pledge, referring to an idea he supported as recently as three weeks ago as a form of “price fixing” that would hurt “smaller, younger companies.” Instead of getting tough, Trump’s new plan is that he’s “going to be lowering taxes” and “getting rid of regulations.”

New drugs are generally covered by patent monopolies, so drug companies have a lot of pricing power; other companies can’t produce the same drug without paying royalties, so there’s little competition. But most countries use their nationalized health care systems to negotiate a good deal on drug prices. Manufacturing pills is cheap, so it’s usually still profitable for a company to sell medicine at a pretty steep discount.

The United States doesn’t have a nationalized health care system, but we do have Medicare for senior citizens, and since the USA is a very large country, that’s still a huge potential bulk purchaser. But a 2003 law written by congressional Republicans and signed by George W. Bush prohibits the federal government from using that negotiating power.

As recently as January 11, President-elect Trump was promising to revisit this policy.

“Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs,” he said at a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly.”

Today he apparently changed his mind. According to Herb Jackson, the designated pool reporter for the day, Trump’s new policy on prescription drugs is that drug companies should get tax cuts and deregulation (emphasis added):

I'll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market. That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare, which is what's happening. But we can increase competition and bidding wars, big time.

So what I want, we have to get lower prices, we have to get even better innovation and I want you to move your companies back into the United States. And I want you to manufacture in the United States. We're going to be lowering taxes, we're going to be getting rid of regulations that are unnecessary.

Many people watching the chaotic rollout of Trump’s executive orders on immigration, his demands for investigations into phantom vote rigging, his mysterious ties to Russia, his financial conflicts of interest, and his bizarre lies about Inauguration Day crowd size have found themselves wondering why more Republicans don’t stand up to him.

This event with PhRMA lobbyists explains why. On most of the big public policy issues of the day, Trump is a very conventional Republican. And on those issues where he hasn’t been conventional, Republican Congress members and business executives feel confident they can turn him around. On some issues, they probably won’t. But on this issue, it seems like they did.

I should acknowledge that some reporters who cover this beat don’t agree with my read of these remarks. But Trump picked an HHS Secretary who’s opposed price negotiations, and other ideologically orthodox Republicans to run Medicare and Medicaid and his Office of Management and Budget. When congressional Democrats tried to get an amendment supporting price negotiation into the senate’s budget resolution, Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop them. It seems to me that Trump is now aligning his statements with the actual policy he is pursuing, namely to speed drug approvals at the FDA and not change anything about Medicare pricing.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:53 am

[QUOTE="SKELETOR, post: 1620674, member: 35827"]"Political Echo Chamber" Wat

Just because people disagree with you doesn't make it an echo chamber.[/QUOTE]
It makes it the opposite.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
ScottyMcGee
Posts: 4884
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by ScottyMcGee » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:58 am

echo echo echo echo

Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:46 pm

...I don't see how there's any room to deny this is about religion, or that the original list was about religion. It's a list that covers even countries that are overwhelmingly Muslim, that any terrorists originating from are overwhelmingly Muslim, and that excludes plenty of countries with terrorism problems motivated by other ideologies. That's the definition of being about religion.

I also maintain my previous point that this list is purely about appearances, because as a plan to prevent terrorists from entering the US, it's s***. Obama's list put restrictions on people who'd visited those countries because many of them have terrorist training camps, not because they're the six most likely points of origin for foreign terrorists. Banning their citizens is completely misusing the list. Per The Atlantic, the seven countries in the ban have sent a combined 17 terrorists to the US since 1975, fewer than Saudi Arabia alone. Those 17 terrorists have been responsible for a grand total of zero deaths, fewer than the one managed by such feared countries as Taiwan and Trinidad & Tobago.

Although he did pick 5 of the top 10 by the Global Terrorist Index, he omitted Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan despite their being numbers 2-4 and all, unlike some of the countries he did pick, having sent terrorists to the US. Pakistan's even managed to kill three people. Sudan, meanwhile, is 15th, and Iran is behind the entire Security Council in 34th place.

But what about IS membership, considering he's made defeating them a top priority? Per the GTI again, but easier to find at Wikipedia, only Libya is in the top 14 for foreign-origin IS fighters, although Iraq and Syria are obviously ineligible and Iran's Shiites would never join it. But even with those disclaimers, the omission of Tunisia, responsible for 5,000 IS combatants by itself and the birth place of recent European attackers, is completely inexplicable. Ditto Morocco.

Which leaves two possibilities: Either Trump hasn't thought about this and just copied Obama's list without realizing it wasn't about national origin, or he has thought about it and implemented it anyway, presumably because it looks like being tough on terrorism at first glance. As I've said before, I strongly lean towards the second option given his allies' (mostly Gingrich) quotes about the importance of people's perceptions versus the true numbers on the campaign trail, but, to repurpose an Arthur C. Clarke quote, both are equally terrifying.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12123
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493

Post by I am nobody » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:11 pm

One thing that's going to be very interesting about Trump's stance on religion is exactly how the directive to favor people fleeing religious persecution is carried out. Considering his campaign talk and his base, the obvious motivation is Syrian Christians and perhaps Yazidis, but what about the Muslim Rohingya, who are almost certainly the target of an army campaign to drive them away and very possibly being ethnically cleansed? What of Muslims in the Central African Republic, who have repeatedly been massacred by anti-government militias and, by some reports, even cannibalized? Non-Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia? How about any of the non-Hindu groups in northern India who've had members killed by cow vigilantes after accusations of eating beef? For that matter, if Iraq falls into sectarian violence again, what will happen to Sunnis or Shiites living on the wrong side of the country?

I don't expect to say this much, but here's hoping he sticks to his word.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:27 am

I found this to be funny.
[spoiler]
Image[/spoiler]
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:31 am

My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1620589, member: 25415 wrote: You really sound like you need a history lesson. If you want it broken down for you: Dictator used to be a general term. It is a position in government enabled by 'temporary' law. Dictators are usually granted extensions of power beyond the authority of any normal position, legally or by declaration of emergency. You get those by causing panic and then claiming to bring order. Perhaps you're only interested in sources which identify as conservative? Easily done. In the words of Conservapedia.com:



There have been many warning signs. The false threat of rising crime is one of them about which Trump frequently lies. So is themyth about the threat of foreign terrorism. Do you think it is now difficult to find evidence of autocratic behavior?






At this point it's either very bad that he is grossly incompetent, or it's the first step in something much worse. I am not content hedging my bets that he has good intentions when his cabinet choices, fear-mongering, and personal record are more than enough. Screw waiting for something to get worse whether he intends it or not.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html
In terms of specific statistics, Trump was accurate when he talked about a 17% year-over-year increase in homicides in the nation’s 50 largest cities; and the homicide rates in Washington, Baltimore and Chicago.

But he was inaccurate when he said that the number of police officer deaths has risen nearly 50% compared with the same period last year. Although the number of police officers killed by guns has gone up by that amount, the overall number of police officers killed in the line of duty is flat.
Not false, not lies.

Also you're comparing apples to oranges when comparing something like a meteor strike to a terrorist attack.
One has no intelligence, no motive.
The other has both of those and specifically wants you dead.
It's not a fair comparison by any means.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:42 am

[QUOTE="Bad Dragonite, post: 1621065, member: 32425"]http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html



Not false, not lies.

Also you're comparing apples to oranges when comparing something like a meteor strike to a terrorist attack.
One has no intelligence, no motive.
The other has both of those and specifically wants you dead.
It's not a fair comparison by any means.[/QUOTE]
Even your article says that his conclusions of 'crime on the rise' are an intentional misrepresentation of a minor inconsistency in a downward trend, and it also concludes that police deaths having risen is factually incorrect. If you'd like to pay attention to the content of the articles you're linking, you might not spend time arguing the technical consistencies and you'd be coming to the same conclusions I have. That quote wasn't even post-election, that besides. Maybe if you'd like to pay attention to what he's said since:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/trum ... sa21gGyboj

In fact, I'm not sure how you could've searched the subject without crossing paths with that one. I'll hazard a guess that you are being intentionally dishonest to construe your stance as more accurate than it is if you are ignoring such recent events. Wonder where you learned that from?



And despite your claims regarding apples to oranges, you haven't discussed the fiscal failures of misconstruing muslim majorities as a pressing matter, or why an honest presidency would have to do so loudly. Yeah, sure, you want a contextual argument.

Islamic extremist terror attacks comprise a pathetic amount of terrorist action on US soil. Since the 70s, there have been 587 successful terrorist actions committed by 'pro-life' extremist Christians and others inside of the US. Islamic extremists have committed 21 terror attacks on US soil since. None of them were Syrian refugees. Your rationalisations are so deeply buried in this ******** that this pedantry is worth absolutely nothing to the greater argument.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:47 am

[QUOTE="My Potions Are Too Strong For You Traveller, post: 1621066, member: 25415"]Even your article says that his conclusions of 'crime on the rise' are an intentional misrepresentation of a minor inconsistency in a downward trend, and it also concludes that police deaths having risen is factually incorrect. If you'd like to pay attention to the content of the articles you're linking, you might not spend time arguing the technical consistencies and you'd be coming to the same conclusions I have. That quote wasn't even post-election, that besides. Maybe if you'd like to pay attention to what he's said since:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/trum ... sa21gGyboj

In fact, I'm not sure how you could've searched the subject without crossing paths with that one. I'll hazard a guess that you are being intentionally dishonest to construe your stance as more accurate than it is if you are ignoring such recent events. Wonder where you learned that from?[/QUOTE]

Actually I was editing in my post that I personally chalk it up to either him misspeaking or *gasp* a politician using true statistics then being hyperbolic by using slippery language. While not completely honest per se the statistics were accurate.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:01 am

^ That's a fair conclusion, but your attitude is ultimately very forgiving. This is the President of the United States we are talking about, he now has access to a ridiculous ocean of data, and he had access to the same statistics we all do. Either he intentionally misrepresented the statistics as an upward trend, or he did so out of lack of caring for the truth. If he simply did not seek out the truth and he was mistaken, where have you seen him correcting himself? We all should be asking "Why does a candidate and a president need to misrepresent the arc of statistics about crime?" Because he wants to engender false outrage and encourage fears. "Why that?" We're not certain about his overall goal, but the easiest explanation is that he is creating false concerns so he can resolve them and maintain the appearance of success in the face of other actions.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:17 am

Sorry sorry I've been busy fighting off the urge to projectile vomit at the site of buzzfeed this early in the morning.
I feel like you used them as a source on purpose out of spite. lol


No but seriously it was a campaign as you said, I don't want to have to go through every example of any politician over hyping or bending the truth because it sounds like something that'll fire up their bases. I think we can agree it's common knowledge politicians do that during campaigns.

Now on what he said about Philly, the only thing I can point to currently is mayor Kennedy saying
Our homicides are, in fact, slowly declining, and while we are not satisfied with even our current numbers, we are handicapped by Republican refusal to enact any kind of common sense gun control and by their obsession with turning our police officers into ICE agents - which will prevent immigrants from coming forward to report crimes or provide critical witnesses statements that can put dangerous criminals behind bars,
which could mean that the murder rates are much higher than stats say due to lack his own admission of a lack of reported crimes, but as far as hard numbers I have no idea right now where Trump got the idea that it's rising. So I have to say he was wrong so far as I can tell and if he was being dishonest he should say something. It could be he misspoke but as you said he has access to this info.

It's still early though so if I find something out I'll post it up here.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 40969
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Contact:

Post by е и ժ е я » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:34 am

^ Thank you, that was candid. I dislike when any presidency or politician overall bends the truth. People voted for Trump because he claimed to not be part of that institution, however. He breathes political spin. It's a difficult job, and they all look like hypocrites at some point because they all act like every battle is their last. How do we go to this from "He tells it like it is," a popular mantra of his supporters?

And yeah, Buzzfeed are idiots. They copied that wholesale from another source.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8649
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia

Post by Bad Dragonite » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:38 am

Soo in the short term it appears Trump isn't wrong for the first month of the year at least. January was notably much more violent than last year and overall Murders are up by 55% so far this year when compared to the same time last year. It's hasn't even been two months, and I'm not sure what he based it off, but yeah.
The past year went up altogether by only 3% and was fluctuating over the past few months but yeah it's gone up ALOT compared to last year out of nowhere.
There were 33 reported murders in January compared to 19 in December.

This is the source every article decrying him used.
https://www.phillypolice.com/crime-maps ... index.html


That said a month and change is a very VERY small sample size but if this trend continues then that'll be interesting. I mean it'll suck, cause well, homicide, but it'll be interesting from a stats perspective.
-Bow Chika Bow Wow
-Your offense only makes me stronger.

Locked

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”