He's mentioned much more than building a wall. For one thing,there is no chance in Hell that Mexico is going to pay for it.
If he became president there should be no doubt that he can make Mexico pay for it. Just ask yourself how and you should be able to come up with exactly how he could do that.
Oh sure, by some kind of taxation on remittances, or a reduction in funding to all things Mexican, or some other accounting thing.
But what if some voter is actually expecting that the President of Mexico has to go on television and humiliate himself and his country by signing some ridiculously huge, "lottery" style cheque for show?
Maybe that's not what Trump is specificslly promising, but is it what his supporters have been led to specifically expect?
Oh sure, by some kind of taxation on remittances, or a reduction in funding to all things Mexican, or some other accounting thing.
But what if some voter is actually expecting that the President of Mexico has to go on television and humiliate himself and his country by signing some ridiculously huge, "lottery" style cheque for show?
Maybe that's not what Trump is specificslly promising, but is it what his supporters have been led to specifically expect?
Think more. That is not the mechanism. It is more simple and direct.
Just to help -- Toll fees for Mexican goods and people crossing.
A heavy toll would effectively end NAFTA with Mexico, something he wants to do anyway.
The money is spent on border infrastructure and so it would nopt be a Tariff but rather a wall toll but the effect is the same.
If elected he can do this. It would be a question of a political fight but if you do not believe in Free TRade then you absolutely can charge so much for the crossings that you can recover the money for this wall as well as putting up a steep barrier.
Both Canada and Mexico have adjusted to NAFTA and the option of just trading less might be even more difficult than paying the toll to move across the goods.
The US will interpret the law and the toll and even if they exempt Americans from paying -- which would be mean -- it would not be impossible. So long as the money is collected for border infrastructure the US will argue it is cost recovery and the not effective tarrif that it really is.
The wall is not just a wall it is a trade barrier.
If Canadians watching this soil their drawers, they are correct to. The US can do the same with the Canadian boundary. The cost to both countries would be high but the more valuable of the two markets is in the US so Canada would pay more dearly.
Understand all these implications and you can see just how dangerous this can be.
If you think closely you can see there is no other mechanism to get Mexico to pay for the wall so this must be it.
Here you go Cody.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-rwC8aREdo
And this is coming from someone who was his biggest cheerleader at one point, A Republican who came to the realizatioon that Trump is a vapid idiot/maniac.
And @ Sean. Mexico is NOT going to pay for that wall. I can promise you that. Trumps claim that they will is just another blow hard delusional idea which is complete buffoonery. If the wall was built along the Canadian border and he handed the bill over to Canada,you're going to tell me that ,yes, he has an excellent point,Canada should pay for something built on American land by the US government?
It's not happening. The Mexicans are going to tell him straight out,jódete pendejo! And rightly so.
A Tsunami of Lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVJOqziLTxU
But I will admit that the US should work with Russia and Iran in annhilating ISIS.
I don't recall ever saying Trump was presidential material. Literally the only things I've said are that Clinton is likely more dangerous, he is not stupid, and I showed some examples of how he gets attacked for literally everything which means that some of the things he is attacked for actually generate positive publicity for him. Like the wall. Like law and order. Like his contempt for the corrupt media. I don't like the man, but he's not wrong about everything.
Literally anything Trump says or does, his detractors build a giant strawman and then show how that strawman argument shows he is Hitler. He's eating a taco bowl! The pandering racist! He's going to Mexico! What a fool! (Mexico trip goes okay). He didn't come out swinging and get Nieto to agree to pay for the wall! <- how is this an actual attack I can't even make this up
He went to Louisiana and got criticized for only going for the photo op. Can you imagine what would have been said about him if he hadn't gone? Do you think he would have gotten the same pass Hillary and Obama got? "Trump didn't go to Louisiana - not presidential material."
Again, I don't think he is presidential material, but anyone who thinks he is covered fairly by the media or the establishment has their head deep in the sand. He would probably be doing worse if those reporting on him had held to some degree of objectivity, but it's gone now and has been for months.
So anyway, I have made three points:
1. Trump is probably less dangerous than Hillary, who has been on the wrong side of virtually every foreign policy decision she's ever been involved in.
2. Trump is not stupid, it should be obvious by now that he knows what he's doing
3. Before criticizing something Trump does, like going to Detroit "to listen", his detractors should check their bias at the door and see if they are just being played for fools for free publicity.
Notably absent point:
Trump is presidential material.
I am still waiting for someone to show when Trump suggested he'd deploy nukes. Is this a strawman too?
As to Trump being treated more critically than Clinton, it's highly debatable. [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/hillary-clintons-supporters-say-...'s coverage of media being tougher on Clinton than Trump.[/url]
I think a lot fo the attacks on Clinton are straightforward misogyny. Amplified, if you like, by American "confirmation bias" or whatever. She is in almost every way a typical mainstream politician, little different in her pros and cons than other mainstream politicians. The banal continuation of American imperial greed. But few try to make other mainstream pols out to be monsters that will devour all that's good and decent in the world.
I think a lot fo the attacks on Clinton are straightforward misogyny. Amplified, if you like, by American "confirmation bias" or whatever. She is in almost every way a typical mainstream politician, little different in her pros and cons than other mainstream politicians. The banal continuation of American imperial greed. But few try to make other mainstream pols out to be monsters that will devour all that's good and decent in the world.
I mostly agree with this, but I would also note that it has become the modus operandi of the Republican party to demonize any Democratic party candidate for President. Look what they did to John Kerry, another very normal U.S. politician. That they can work in misogyny as well this year is just a bonus. Their base, living in the Fox/Breitbart/Drudge unreality bubble, will believe any accusation against any Democrat, no matter how unlikely.
Their base, living in the Fox/Breitbart/Drudge unreality bubble, will believe any accusation against any Democrat, no matter how unlikely.
Don't neglect the commondreams/RT.com/babble bubble.
RT is a reputable and fair and balanced media outlet next to Breitbart and Fox. I,personally,get my news from many different sources. I don't live in a bubble. The Breitbart/Drudge/O'Reilly/Hannity crowd live not only in a bubble but another planet.
The 'lame stream' media..CTV,CBC,BBC,,They report the NEWS. Breitbart slanders and out right lies. It's reading for morons.
Having said that,NBC is VERY easy on Trump. They won't fact checkl him and they won't call out his bullshit when he drops a massive deuce from his fish mouth.
I think what Michael Moriarty said was the truth. Far away from any 'bubble'
I'm certainly not suggesting that you, or most of us, live in a bubble.
But it's kind of funny to criticize Breitbart for their over-the-top hatred of Clinton and their willingness to believe anything negative about her in a babble thread titled "Would the World Survive a Killary Presidency?"
It would actually be kind of nice if we could say "It's just THEM".
Agreed. Some of these thread titles are as offensive as Breitbart and Drudge.
I wouldn't suggest that Clinton is warm and cuddly and human, and that if we all just gave her a chance we'd learn to love her. I see no problem with a plain and honest analysis of her politics, and the chasm between them and progressive politics.
But I guess I do find it fascinating that that animus toward her is like rolling a snowball -- it necessarily gets larger and larger as you go -- to the point that someone finds it reasonable to wonder why Clinton wants to murder us all before she dies of her concussion.
And the other fascinating thing is that it really has nothing at all to do with Clinton. We saw the same with Obama. We saw the same with Kerry. We'll see the same with the next democrat. They all go from zero to "world's greatest threat" in the space of a few months.
RT is a reputable and fair and balanced media outlet next to Breitbart and Fox.
Their base, living in the Fox/Breitbart/Drudge unreality bubble, will believe any accusation against any Democrat, no matter how unlikely.Don't neglect the commondreams/RT.com/babble bubble.
IMO they are objective allies with each other (those in the unreality bubble, I mean) . Whether on the right or left, or wherever, they are all completely closed-minded to the idea that anyone might have any interest in honesty or getting at some kind of truth. So they are on the same side, opposed to rational analysis and any kind of agreed standards.
If it isn't party dogma, it is the enemy.
We're going to have to disagree on that. They're a propaganda network, and at certain points have been clear that objective or balanced news is not their purpose or intent.RT is a reputable and fair and balanced media outlet next to Breitbart and Fox.
The key word is NEXT toi Breitbart and Fox which are propaganda machines. Maybe RT is biased. But at least I get my news from more sources than RT or Al Jazeera or Breitbart or Fox.
I'm not dogmatic. I'm interested in truth. And the truth is,right wingers are.
RE: Trump,Alex Jones,the entire Republican party.... If there is a dogmatic left,I'm not one of them.
Here you go Cody.
Thanks. I'll assume the host is being honest, and that his anonymous source from months ago was also being honest. Under those assumptions, this is evidence that at worst Trump doesn't understand why America shouldn't use nukes. If one is being charitable, maybe he understands now, or maybe he just wanted to split the difference between "can't" and "shouldn't." We'll run with the worst interpretation because reasons. At this time I'd like to reiterate my stance that I don't think he's presidential material.
Now can someone show me where Trump actually suggested he would use nukes? I really hate the play this game, but Hillary actually suggested she would nuke Iran in 2008. Has Trump done the same? If so, that would be more relevant than Clinton's comments from 8 years ago and would be a solid basis for an argument that he's actually more dangerous than she is.
Their base, living in the Fox/Breitbart/Drudge unreality bubble, will believe any accusation against any Democrat, no matter how unlikely.Don't neglect the commondreams/RT.com/babble bubble.
common dreams and babble have nothing in common with RT.com. Babble has never been the Vladimir Putin fan club, and neither is common dreams.
We're going to have to disagree on that. They're a propaganda network, and at certain points have been clear that objective or balanced news is not their purpose or intent.RT is a reputable and fair and balanced media outlet next to Breitbart and Fox.
The key word is NEXT toi Breitbart and Fox which are propaganda machines. Maybe RT is biased. But at least I get my news from more sources than RT or Al Jazeera or Breitbart or Fox.
I'm not dogmatic. I'm interested in truth. And the truth is,right wingers are.
RE: Trump,Alex Jones,the entire Republican party.... If there is a dogmatic left,I'm not one of them.
A disagreement of small degrees then. I think RT is actually a little worse in that 1. They're funded by a foreign power with interests that don't necessarily align with the US's and 2. They work harder at trying to seem like they're not what they are.
Fair enough. But I do enjoy Thom Hartmann's show.
Some food for thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7oaxnOw6QY
It may be MSNBC but Rachel Maddow is a competent and intelligent journalist.
...no need to encourage the youth in our parts to lay off the recreational drugs and electronic gadgets to start paying ttention, organize and take actions to stop this insanity!
"encourage the youth"?
and how in hell do you do this?
In Soviet Russia, you do not encourage the youth, the youth encourages *you*!
"encourage the youth"?
and how in hell do you do this?
...firstly we must totally denounce all these status quoers around here, claiming everything is just fine...the economy is great, there is no threat of nuclear war, the US empire is not falling apart and in desperation may make some reckless moves, and Canada? We are just fine, what with 70% of our trade with a bankrupt country, our oil and gas, industrial mining industries failing, our real estate bubbles popping and now with the final crutch holding up the system, the stock market...now under threat.....
These gatekeepers for the system under the guise of progressive leftists? are encouraging the youth to keep to their distractions and ignore the dismal future awaiting them...somewhere somehow, there must be a clear vouice in this country (which of course will be ridiculed by the Mainstream pressitutes and their followers in these pages), to sound the alarm...wake up!
I fear the wake up call may come to late......when we are powerless to do anything!
I know laughter has rendered me completely powerless.
RT is a reputable and fair and balanced media outlet next to Breitbart and Fox.
We're going to have to disagree on that. They're a propaganda network, and at certain points have been clear that objective or balanced news is not their purpose or intent.
They are a propaganda network exactly the same as the CBC is one. However both RT and CBC are still far more fair and balanced than Fox despite having a distint slant.
In Soviet Russia, you do not encourage the youth, the youth encourages *you*!
Thx for the cold war "history" lesson. You do know that the USSR has been defunct since before any of our current "youth" were born don't you?
"encourage the youth"?
I remember some of the people who tried encouraging my generation.
They are a propaganda network exactly the same as the CBC is one. However both RT and CBC are still far more fair and balanced than Fox despite having a distint slant.
I'm going to disagree with you, too. CBC has a pretty solid set of journalistic standards - I know, I've been held to them in producing documentary for them - while RT proudly does not.
And while the CBC slips up on occasion, they are certainly not a propaganda network. This kind of tarring is really counterproductive.
They are a propaganda network exactly the same as the CBC is one. However both RT and CBC are still far more fair and balanced than Fox despite having a distint slant.
I'm going to disagree with you, too. CBC has a pretty solid set of journalistic standards - I know, I've been held to them in producing documentary for them - while RT proudly does not.
And while the CBC slips up on occasion, they are certainly not a propaganda network. This kind of tarring is really counterproductive.
We obviously disagree and while you claim I am counterproductive I think that you are very productive when it comes to trying to enhance the reputations of the businesses you make your living from.
In the meantime in the home of the free where freedom of the press means freedom to spread propaganda I found the FB claim that these are actual WSJ headlines from the same date but in different state markets quite interesting.
Oh, the shill gambit! Wow, can we move on to Godwin next? Or will we start with me being a tool of the Illuminati? (By the way, they're late with their cheque, I'm holding off on nice things to say about them until they cough up.)
Seriously, that was beneath you.
Yes, I've contracted for CBC. Hope to in the future. I don't work with the news departments, however. I do know what the standards are, though, through direct experience - but we wouldn't want to hear about that, it's so grubby, while sheer speculation is oh, so pure.
Gee Timebandit is it only you that gets to throw nasty little backbiting digs at other posters? What I really like is that after you accuse me of tarring the CBC you then get to go into full frontal assault. I did not call you a shill but if that is how you see yourself who am I to argue.
Unlike you I base my views of the CBC bias on the coverage they provide not on my personal relationships with members of the organization. The coverage of the Ukraine and Russia on RT and CBC are mirror images of each other. The idea that Peter Mansbridge is not a propagandist is IMO an absurdity.
It was an early an a late edition, not different parts of the country. So... mostly false:
http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
The edition on the left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day (and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion), and the edition on the right was published after Trump delivered a speech on immigration later in the day (and referenced Trump's reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border):
Because of course while we can't believe the evil CBC (or anyone who so much as made a call into the noon show), if it is on the free and open world wide web it must be true. The illuminati did it!
And k, you said that she likes to promote businesses she works with? What is that supposed to mean?
It was an early an a late edition, not different parts of the country. So... mostly false:
http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/
The edition on the left was published after Trump met with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto early in the day (and referenced the seemingly cooperative tone of their discussion), and the edition on the right was published after Trump delivered a speech on immigration later in the day (and referenced Trump's reasserting his stance that he would force Mexico to pay for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border):
Because of course while we can't believe the evil CBC, if it is on the free and open world wide web it must be true. The illuminati did it!
I never claimed it was true I said I found it interesting.
Could cite anything from the last 12 years where I have posted about the Illuminati. Your insults as usual miss the mark because you just blow smoke out your ass without regard for what people actually post.
Oh for fuck sakes, kropotkin. No regard for what people post? Do you want me to repeat, with references to what you just posted?
First you back off from one smear, then you back off from a false claim about "propaganda". You want to get mealy mouthed about it, fine. But if you want me to back up my words I will be happy to oblige you.
Could cite anything from the last 12 years where I have posted about the Illuminati. Your insults as usual miss the mark because you just blow smoke out your ass without regard for what people actually post.
You're missing the point, sugar. You haven't literally posted about the Illuminati, but you're starting to enter Illuminati-level conspiracy territory.
Gee Timebandit is it only you that gets to throw nasty little backbiting digs at other posters? What I really like is that after you accuse me of tarring the CBC you then get to go into full frontal assault. I did not call you a shill but if that is how you see yourself who am I to argue.
Okay, well, let's look at the word and its meaning.
We obviously disagree and while you claim I am counterproductive I think that you are very productive when it comes to trying to enhance the reputations of the businesses you make your living from.
shill (ʃɪl)
n. 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house. 2. a person whose praises, endorsements, etc., are motivated by self-interest. v.i. 3. to work as a shill: to shill for a large casino.
This looks very much like an implication that I was saying something positive (I thought it was more neutral, just citing a fact that I had direct knowledge of, ie: a journalistic policy) because there was a financial relationship with that particular network. So no, you didn't flat out call me a shill, but you definitely implied it.
I don't know what backbiting you're talking about. I'm generally pretty up front.
Unlike you I base my views of the CBC bias on the coverage they provide not on my personal relationships with members of the organization. The coverage of the Ukraine and Russia on RT and CBC are mirror images of each other. The idea that Peter Mansbridge is not a propagandist is IMO an absurdity.
No, you base your opinion on your ideology. They don't slant from the left enough for you - we've had this conversation before. That doesn't make it propaganda. In fact, if they *did* report to your taste, it would actually be closer to propaganda. Just because it's not from your perspective doesn't make it bad journalism.
What I was talking about was the existence, and largely the adherence to, a journalistic set of standards, not the people who I've worked with. Once again, they may not be ideologically pure-left as you would like, but they exist and they are enforced. Rather than imply that I'm basing my opinion on buttering my bread or through some emotional attachment, give us some substance. You're not the only one here capable of watching and analysing the news reporting.
RT has been utter unapologetic about its role as a propaganda tool. Here's an interesting article from 2010, at the point where things were relatively amicable between Russia and the US, detailing the directions of the network, beginnings, etc.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
The younger members of the RT staff, however, are more pragmatic about the potential conflict—whether internal, ideological, or, down the line, professional—of working for RT. The ones who felt it compromised their careers have left; the rest choose to remove lofty ideals like objectivity from the equation. “Maybe people watch us like a freak show,” Shevardnadze told me, “but I’ve never been even slightly embarrassed. This point of view has a right to exist. We don’t have the pretension of being like CNN, or being as good as bbc, because we’re not. You may totally disagree with what we’re doing, and it’s meant to be that way.” She adds, with a touch of exasperation, “It’s a job. They pay you for it.”
Could cite anything from the last 12 years where I have posted about the Illuminati. Your insults as usual miss the mark because you just blow smoke out your ass without regard for what people actually post.
You're missing the point, sugar. You haven't literally posted about the Illuminati, but you're starting to enter Illuminati-level conspiracy territory.
Its now a conspiracy theory to think that the CBC has biased coverage. I responded to your post the way I did because in response to my opinion on our news media you posted saying that we should trust them because you work with them. I thought that was not only self serving but also missed my point completely, sweetie pie.
Comparing CBC or BBC with Fox,Drudge,Infowars,Breitbart or any of the network news such as NBC,CBS and ABC is nonsense.
I'm not a Hillary fan but some of these threads about 'Killery' or 'Hitlery' is just as bad as anything you'd read at Breitbart.com,The Drudge Report or Infowars.Shouldn't be reading such crap at babble.
The media DOES NOT fact check Trump. They let him lie,bald faced without any,questions. I feel the media demonizes Clinton and props up Trump. Really. Watch CNN. Watch Matt Lauer's leaders interview. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.
What makes the CBC such a fascinating propaganda organ is their apparent ability to work both sides of the street at the same time.
To the conservatives, they're the state-run, latte-leftwing Pravda.
To the left, they're an instrument of hegemonic, neo-liberal corporate servitude.
If they're getting under everyone's skin, they must be doing something right.
Its now a conspiracy theory to think that the CBC has biased coverage. I responded to your post the way I did because in response to my opinion on our news media you posted saying that we should trust them because you work with them. I thought that was not only self serving but also missed my point completely, sweetie pie.
No, but comparing them to an openly propagandistic media outlet like RT is.
I also did not suggest that you trust them because I've worked with them. I cited a fact that was counter to your assertion, knowledge of which was gained first hand. It in no way would have any effect on my ability to work with the Factual unit one way or the other.
I get your point, you're just wrong. As in factually incorrect. And you responded with a nasty, personal insinuation. Grow up, already.
This motherfucker is a real piece of shit.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/trump-dismisses-50-percent-a...
Fuckin' cretin. And the lame stream media will ignore it,CNN and MSNBC will downplay it and Fox/Breitbart/Drudge/InfoWars will cum in their pants.
Christ. Now he wants to privatize all public schools. He's a maniac. Americans are already stupid. Now you're going to deny them a basic education?!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/clinton-s-and-trump-s-plans-to-improve-educa...
The CBC is biased because they do a very bad job of poviding context. They bring on guests that misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story. They also always give the current government of the day the rebuttal position. They often engage in "balanced" reporting where most experts believe something is true they balance that view by having one person on to tell the accepted truth and one person to debunk it. I find there coverage of NATO activiity to be particularily bad especially in regards to providing context.
RT and CBC are both state funded news services and that shows.
and how in hell do you do this?...firstly we must totally denounce all these status quoers around here
Are you demanding this on behalf of "the youth" that you feel you represent?
Because I have a funny feeling you're demanding this for YOU.
It's not like babble is the new Facebook to "the youth". Please.
Besides, isn't the real problem fun drugs and electronic gadgets?
Is there any other mainstream Canadian news agency with which you are satisfied?
I'm interested to know that, because I think CBC actually does a pretty good job. And when you're doing political reporting, you're generally reporting on government... so wouldn't you give the government their 2 cents? You have to give balance, an opportunity to respond - you don't have to give equal weight, but it's really poor journalism not to at least ask for response, which may be in the form of a rebuttal.
So I'm kind of curious, other than news that tells you what you already know in a way that confirms your biases (they call that propaganda), what kind of news service you'd actually be content with.
And no, RT is an unabashed propaganda arm. It is not the same as the CBC or BBC. As much as you'd like it to be, that's simply inaccurate. It's like saying a mole is a dog because it has four legs.
Is there any other mainstream Canadian news agency with which you are satisfied?
Define mainstream.
I find most media like most people have built in institutional biases. I do not care for RT's portrayal of Putin anymore than I like CBC's coverage of Trudeau. I get my news from as many sources as possible and then I decide based pretty much on the same basis as for credibility of witnesses as found in Faryna v. Chorny. Its all about being consistent with the preponderrence of probabilities.
The credibility of interested witness, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. Only thus can a Court satisfactorily appraise the testimony of quick-minded, experienced and confident witnesses, and of those shrewd persons adept in the half-lie and of long and successful experience in combining skilful exaggeration with partial suppression of the truth.
http://disinherited.com/legal-principles-affecting-judges-assessment-wit...
Also, journalism isn't a court of law. Apples and oranges.
Exactly, the illusion of objectivity is what all dishonest media try to sell. There is no such thing. That doesn't mean that they can't have some standards of accuracy or fairness.
