Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

For Hannity a Hillary victory is job security and a big pay raise.

[hack]

You expect many on the right to be doing the playground thing: the repetitive name calling and the talking past each other and the wild assertions, etc. But there's never going to bea debate of any sort of quality if the deputy editorial page editor of the WSJ is in on it. That's supposed to be a bastion of thoughtful conservatism. It's always been less rigorous than it claims to be, but Stephens is not even pretending to be ideas-oriented here. Indicative of the times we're in, I guess. Sad.

[Ghengis Jon]

Now its a bastion of run-of-the-mill conservatism. I subscribe to the WSJ for everything BUT its editorials. Any paper (at least the editorial board) that prints the drivel of Rove, Bachmann and their ilk as a guiding light can hardly be taken seriously. But ignore the editorials and its a decent, well rounded paper. Their position seems to be "support Trump because he's not Clinton." Kind of like "I don't like Stalin so I'm voting for Hitler". I wish the ed board would take the course of The Week magazine, where they quote both sides of an issue and let the reader decide.

[entropy]

Meanwhile, HillTron 4000 doesn't need to answer a single question until after the election. Have a few rallies here and there and stay on script is about the extent of her campaign.

I wouldn't even push for debates if I was her... Less you say the better. Trump is going to lose by a landslide and she doesn't have to do a thing but let him open his mouth.

[entropy]

I'm not sure what those establishment Republicans are supposed to do. They have a candidate running for president whose whole message is creating controversy.

I view the republicans like I viewed the dem's in the early 2000's.. very disorganized, multiple messages and reactive vs sending an agenda.

[entropy]

It's people like Hannity that created the opening for Trump.

I think the article I posted yesterday had merit in the fact that if you label everyone hitler, racist, commie, etc.. you really never separate those you disagree with from the really bad people.

Trump exists because people have shut out criticism.. thinking it is business as usual. How many people really trust the news anymore... How many people scoff at what people say on Fox or in Hollywood? Because everyone is the worst ever. It becomes noise you ignore. It's not the only reason a Trump exists, but it plays a part.

BTW.. was Hannity a trump fan the whole time? I don't watch.

[WingsFan]

Yes, he has been his biggest fan since the beginning, always bitching how his 'party' has let him down.

[hack]

Now its a bastion of run-of-the-mill conservatism. I subscribe to the WSJ for everything BUT its editorials. Any paper (at least the editorial board) that prints the drivel of Rove, Bachmann and their ilk as a guiding light can hardly be taken seriously. But ignore the editorials and its a decent, well rounded paper. Their position seems to be "support Trump because he's not Clinton." Kind of like "I don't like Stalin so I'm voting for Hitler". I wish the ed board would take the course of The Week magazine, where they quote both sides of an issue and let the reader decide.

Agree completely -- that's how you read it now. Still a quality newsgathering organization with good people involved. Quite possibly the only actual newspaper other than the Financial Times that puts out decent global coverage that is relatively unspun. I sure do miss the old WSJ though, with Wessel and Ipp, and the feature writing. The middle column, in the 90s and early 00s -- that was some of the best newspaper writing ever. Ten minutes of daily delight.

[Da Geezer]

Mike:

Yep. The high-wage factory jobs ain't coming back, no matter who says they are. A better use of time is to figure out a new game plan rather than banking on some kook to turn back time.

Agreed. Trump's basic job-related proposal says that the manufacturing jobs would come back, or not have left, if we had better trade deals. IMO robotics, information technology, and globalization are a larger cause of the decline in manufacturing jobs. I've also thought that Trump should be specific on his "bad trade deals" line. The manipulation of currency by China and Mexico, among others, is the item where Trump has it correct. Almost all economists understand that "free trade" is based on comparative advantage. But any comparative advantage analysis posits a stable currency. Trump could have his cake and eat it too if he emphasized currency manipulation and still accepted that part of "free trade" that creates jobs.

[Ghengis Jon]

Truth in political advertising.

[Wild Hoss]

I wouldn't even push for debates if I was her... Less you say the better. Trump is going to lose by a landslide and she doesn't have to do a thing but let him open his mouth.

This is the course I have advised for months. Up two scores in the 4th...punt and play defense.

I think she will screw up somewhere though. She's too arrogant to be satisfied playing for field position; she will want to run up the score. That will provide an opportunity for DJT at some point



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[hack]

I think the question about trade deals is who exactly do they work for? Who would President Trump get a better deal for? He hasn't said. The trade deals work very well for multinationals. When we talk about job-creators in this country, we need to ask where precisely the jobs are created.

[Da Geezer]

I think the question about trade deals is who exactly do they work for?

Trade deals can work for both parties, and create a bigger pie for both. That's the goal.

80% of new jobs are created by small business.

Hillary said she would raise taxes on the middle class. I'd like to know exactly how to define "middle class". Right now we seem to have four classes, the poor, the middle class, the rich, and the super-rich. Anyone care to opine on the minimum income to be included in the "middle class"?

[CGVT]

Oh, FFS. That is not what she said.

Politifact

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

"Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "
— Donald Trump on Thursday, August 4th, 2016 in a campaign video
Donald Trump wrongly says Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class

By Linda Qiu on Friday, August 5th, 2016 at 12:34 p.m.


Did this Donald J. Trump ad misrepresent what Hillary Clinton actually said about raising taxes?
Hillary Clinton just admitted to a big tax hike, at least according to Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign sent an email blast to supporters embedded with a video of a Clinton event in Omaha, Neb., entitled, "Hillary Clinton says she wants to ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’"

The subtitles of Clinton’s speech read: "Trump wants to cuts taxes for the super rich. Well, we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class."

"Wait what?" the videos continues, before playing the damning sentence in slow motion: "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class."

"Wait, what?" was the reaction of the Clinton campaign too. Spokesman Josh Schwerin told us Clinton actually said the exact opposite.

He pointed to numerous reporters who agreed and forwarded us a transcript of Clinton’s prepared remarks that reads, "We aren’t going to to raise taxes on the middle class."

It’s a classic case of she-heard-he-heard, so we asked experts to arbitrate. They agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Get ready for some science.

Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.

By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."

Here’s a screenshot of the results:



As you can see, the phoneme (unit of sound) highlighted in pink is an "n," though there’s not a "t." That still suggests she was trying for the word "aren’t."

"It is pretty common for people to not release the final ‘t in word-final -nt clusters and is definitely not likely for someone to release the ‘t’in a three-consonant sequence like ‘ntg’ in ‘aren't going,’" Yu told us. "In any case, since she did pronounce the ‘n’ in ‘aren't’, it is clear that she produced the negated form of the copula ‘are.’"

Edward Flemming, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also ran the audio through Praat and came up with the same results. But even if we didn’t have Praat, he said, context alone sways the argument in the Clinton camp’s favor.

"Also if she was going to say ‘we are going to’, wouldn’t she contract it to ‘we’re’, as she does a few words earlier?" Flemming pointed out. "To my ears, it is clear that she is saying ‘aren’t’."

Clinton’s tax plan, by the way, does not change the tax rates for the middle class and instead targets the wealthy through small reforms.

Our ruling

The Trump campaign said, "Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "

According to the transcript, numerous reporters, experts and a computer program, Clinton said the exact opposite.

We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

[hack]

Geez. A speechwriter should know not to use contractions with something that hot. You use a structure that can't be misinterprted. ``will NOT'', ``rates are gonna stay the same for...'', etc. That's a standard part of being a competent speechwriter, or at least I think it is. You'd think Hillary can afford some quality ones.