The Omarosa Chronicles

NM11046 said:
I think the weight the general public puts into Pundits is scary stupid.  Why did the public shift from watching Tom Brokaw and Walter Cronkite to Hannity and calling that news?

I don't disagree with the pundit comments, but I do disagree with news affiliates.  The problem is that today many people can't verbialize the difference between one and the other and don't realize that pundits aren't newsmen (I use that as a general term).  Folks don't read for themselves and form an opinion, or listen to the general news affiliate locally or nationally and deduce what they think based on the facts.  

Seriously - when did pundits become a trusted news source and not just entertainment?
Click to expand...
The advent of 24 hour news? Those happy to confirm your pre-conceived opinions got a platform just for you, why bother dealing with facts anymore?

 
mrandyk said:
It's not surprising that you have to attack the concept of a fact itself, rather than provide any to reinforce your opinions.
Click to expand...


I believe in facts. But I’ve been around long enough to know that data can be manipulated to fit a preconceived agenda. Look at the whole global warming/climate change fraud.

 
hskerprid said:
Because many of the news outlets and magazines have their own agendas to push. Left, right, far left, far right seem to have their own slant or skew on the events  in the world and especially on the politics of this country. Too many people I believe, get caught up in their own rhetoric and sensationalism. Who knows what or who to believe anymore. I watch NBC nightly news sometimes  and the bias and race baiting is so blatantly right in your face that it belies sensibility. Fox news certainly has their own twisted version of things as well.

I see a nation unraveling from every side. No one side is innocent in their endeavors to portray the opposing side as fraudulent and too many people get caught up in the wave upon wave of half truths. 
Click to expand...


This is why we should never rely on one source for news. No one source for polls. No one source for anything. 

I follow dozens of local and national news outlets, from conservatives to moderates to liberals.  I use logic & facts to discern the truth from all of it.

Some sources are obviously biased. For example, I would never use MSNBC or Fox News as a source. Same with biased pollsters, like Rasmussen. There are just obvious propaganda outlets that you have to be aware of, and ignore.

We also have to be aware of two other things - our own personal biases and the propensity of human nature to gravitate toward things that confirm our personal biases. It's a daily struggle that we should all fight against. 

There's a lot of noise out there.  There's a lot of obvious propaganda out there, and some really bad examples of it here, but the best way to skewer it is to think, "Who is my least favorite president? If that person did _______, would I be OK with it?" 

 
Ric Flair said:
https://nypost.com/2017/04/01/obama-was-terrible-for-economic-growth/
Click to expand...
Talk about some cherry-picked numbers. Obama took over the worst economy since the Great Depression, of course his numbers will be dragged down by that. So let's take a look at how Trump compares to Presidents who took over strong economies:

Trump lags behind his predecessors on economic growth

While some hyperbole is a matter of opinion, Trump’s claim that his stewardship of the economy puts his predecessors to shame can be checked by public information that is readily available to all. In fact, the data show that compared to his predecessors, Trump’s record so far falls somewhere between unremarkable and substandard.
Click to expand...
Comparing that pace to his last nine predecessors over comparable periods in their first terms,  Trump here bests the four presidents who faced recessions in their first year in office (Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon). Trump’s other five predecessors came to office, as he did, during economic expansions. Among them, he’s tied for last place: Real GDP growth under Trump over the three quarters has lagged Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy, and tied George H.W. Bush, as the data in the following table shows.
Click to expand...

 
Ric Flair said:
That’s such complete BS. At least 95% of the people here are relatively like-minded Trump haters. What passes for “facts” among you is a complete joke.
Click to expand...




That's such complete BS. At least 30% of the people here are relatively conservative Trump "haters", at least 10% of the people here are relatively moderate Trump "haters", and at least 60% of the people here are relatively liberal Trump "haters"

 
commando said:
hard to beleive that all those scientist are wrong and you somehow magically know more about climate than they do.   
Click to expand...


Hard to believe that I have a better understanding of how “science” os supposed to work than they do either. But there it is.

ZRod said:
I'm curious which policies you think were responsible for this?
Click to expand...


High tax rates, both corporate and individual. Massive overregulation. And speech after speech making it clear that his was an administration that was not business friendly. 

 
Landlord said:
That's such complete BS. At least 30% of the people here are relatively conservative Trump "haters", at least 10% of the people here are relatively moderate Trump "haters", and at least 60% of the people here are relatively liberal Trump "haters"
Click to expand...


So how many here like the guy, at least somewhat?

 
Ric Flair said:
Hard to believe that I have a better understanding of how “science” os supposed to work than they do either. But there it is.

High tax rates, both corporate and individual. Massive overregulation. And speech after speech making it clear that his was an administration that was not business friendly. 
Click to expand...
I would absolutely love for you to demonstrate how you have a better understanding of the science than the scientists studying the issue. Do you deny that the climate is warming, that it's man made, or both?

Obama effectively kept tax rates the same for your average American, and lowered them for the lowest earners. So, you're already off to a Shakey start on your argument. The richest among us are paying lower tax rates than they did during the booming 50's. However, they did receive a minor tax hike (related to Obamacare) but are still paying lower taxes than the 50's, and he did increases taxes in the healthcare field to finance Obamacare; but I don't see that as hampering a booming industry since profits are still soaring. 

Which regulations do you feel were not necessary?

Also feel free to backup your claim at anytime that Obama said the economy could never reach these numbers.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ric Flair said:
Hard to believe that I have a better understanding of how “science” os supposed to work than they do either. But there it is.

High tax rates, both corporate and individual. Massive overregulation. And speech after speech making it clear that his was an administration that was not business friendly. 
Click to expand...
Funny thing.  For a 73 year old company, the last 5 years have been the best 5 years in the history of our company.

 
Back
Top