CNN has lost all credibility

[The Good Michael]

Oh and the next time there's a world crisis go ahead and see what Canada does about it.

America creates the crises for the purpose of doing something about them in order to enrich the few. Canada rarely is involved in causing such issues, hence, it is a safer place.

Mike

[jason_c]

America creates the crises for the purpose of doing something about them in order to enrich the few. Canada rarely is involved in causing such issues, hence, it is a safer place.

Mike

That's what they also said about Germany & Sweden.

[Abby Normal]

America creates the crises for the purpose of doing something about them in order to enrich the few. Canada rarely is involved in causing such issues, hence, it is a safer place.

Mike

"AMerica creates the crises"???? LOL. OK.

[Svensson]

- are you willing to give the Republican Congress any credit for the supposed budget surplus? Which it wasn't btw. That surplus was another example of fake news. It was just an accounting trick.
- the same with the unemployment rate of 4%. Do Republicans get credit for that too?

I am absolutely willing to give congress some credit in this if the process to get there can show that they had a positive influence on the outcome..

The problem is, you have basically killed off any such discussion by claiming that there was no budget surplus and that the unemployment rate of 4% was not correct.

This leads me to the wider problem that for any rational discussion, certain facts, and the authority on the facts need to be agreed on. If there is no consensus on that on such basic principles, then there is no point to discuss anything at all.

And this is probably the sad state of american politics now. We used to be warned not to discuss politics in places like China, Vietnam, Turkey or South Africa (Apartheid days). Now it seems that we can add the US to that list as well. It's just too toxic.

Clinton's relationship was with an intern. That relationship would get most mid level managers fired immediately. I can't believe anyone would condemn Trump for what he said but defend Clinton's for what they actually did.

Not a good example. There is nothing that would stop a president or a manager to have a relationship with anyone on his staff. you are probably confusing this with a Teacher/Pupil relationship.

I'm also not defending Clinton for lying under oath but we need to keep things in perspective:

One lied under oath about a consensual relationship.
Another described his Sexual Assault MO in a secret Audio tape.

[Svensson]

That's what they also said about Germany & Sweden.

again, I can't let this one pass.

I can see why Sweden and Germany are like a red rag to republicans in general.

Sweden is the antipathy of Republican ideology. It is a high-tax country where government has sweeping powers and responsibilities. despite this I would actually say, because of this), Sweden ranks consistently higher than the US in Standard of living tables. Over the years, we have seen attempts by Breitbart, Trump and Fox to paint a different picture. Fortunately, this is not really successful however.

Germany, similar situation. They have taken in a million refugees in 2015 in an attempt to get to grips with the refugee crisis that is the result of the Syrian war. Republicans would love Germany to fail (however you would measure "failure") or at least take some cheap pot-shots like they owe NATO money (they don't) or they manipulate their currency to hurt the US economy (they don't and they can;t, even if they wanted to).

Back to the subject of the thread: CNN are doing an important service in holding Trump and his cronies to account and uncovering their constant lies. In that respect, CNN are doing an important service to the american people and even to the world. It is only natural that Trump Supporters would like to discredit CNN in any way possible. And quite sad

[jason_c]

I am absolutely willing to give congress some credit in this if the process to get there can show that they had a positive influence on the outcome..

The problem is, you have basically killed off any such discussion by claiming that there was no budget surplus and that the unemployment rate of 4% was not correct.

This leads me to the wider problem that for any rational discussion, certain facts, and the authority on the facts need to be agreed on. If there is no consensus on that on such basic principles, then there is no point to discuss anything at all.

And this is probably the sad state of american politics now. We used to be warned not to discuss politics in places like China, Vietnam, Turkey or South Africa (Apartheid days). Now it seems that we can add the US to that list as well. It's just too toxic.




Not a good example. There is nothing that would stop a president or a manager to have a relationship with anyone on his staff. you are probably confusing this with a Teacher/Pupil relationship.

I'm also not defending Clinton for lying under oath but we need to keep things in perspective:

One lied under oath about a consensual relationship.
Another described his Sexual Assault MO in a secret Audio tape.

I didn't claim the 4% unemployment rate was incorrect, but I can see how my wording made it look that way. The current unemployment rate is way wrong but the 1990's rate was probably roughly correct. My point about the unemployment rate under Clinton was that it was due to Republican Congress as much, if not more, than President Clinton.

There was no budget surplus. The US government debt went up every year under Clinton. It's just certain debts are not included in the yearly Federal Deficit accounts. It was an accounting trick. Having said all that under Clinton and a right wing Congress the US budget deficit did vastly improve. The deficit was far less than under most modern Presidents. I think we can both agree on this.

I am unsure of the workplace rules on sleeping with an intern. Perhaps I was wrong to say most mid level managers would get sacked for doing so. However, I think many mid level managers would be sacked for such an act. Im fairly certain it's not a great career move for either party. The risk of being sacked for such an act must be fairly high.

You call what Trump said as a description of sexual assault. It's not, or at least it's complicated. Trump specifically said they "let" him do it, it's consensual; just as Lewinsky "let" Clinton do whatever he did to her. What both men did and described runs huge risks. Depending on how well each man judges the "come on signals" both acts could end up with either man imprisoned, or having a fantastic sexual experience.

[The Good Michael]

Republicans would love Germany to fail (however you would measure "failure") or at least take some cheap pot-shots like they owe NATO money (they don't) or they manipulate their currency to hurt the US economy (they don't and they can;t, even if they wanted to).

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I didn't claim the 4% unemployment rate was incorrect, but I can see how my wording made it look that way. The current unemployment rate is way wrong but the 1990's rate was probably roughly correct. My point about the unemployment rate under Clinton was that it was due to Republican Congress as much, if not more, than President Clinton.

There was no budget surplus. The US government debt went up every year under Clinton. It's just certain debts are not included in the yearly Federal Deficit accounts. It was an accounting trick. Having said all that under Clinton and a right wing Congress the US budget deficit did vastly improve. The deficit was far less than under most modern Presidents. I think we can both agree on this.

I am unsure of the workplace rules on sleeping with an intern. Perhaps I was wrong to say most mid level managers would get sacked for doing so. However, I think many mid level managers would be sacked for such an act. Im fairly certain it's not a great career move for either party. The risk of being sacked for such an act must be fairly high.

You call what Trump said as a description of sexual assault. It's not, or at least it's complicated. Trump specifically said they "let" him do it, it's consensual; just as Lewinsky "let" Clinton do whatever he did to her. What both men did and described runs huge risks. Depending on how well each man judges the "come on signals" both acts could end up with either man imprisoned, or having a fantastic sexual experience.

While in no way would I defend what Trump said and it was deplorable, Bill Clintons actions are much worse. Having sex with an intern half his age in the oval office and then lying about it??? yechhh!

but even much worse is the sexual abuse charges. He had to settle on a rape charge and then all the other claims. Total slimeball.

[Svensson]

Anyways, didn't I mention ”Happy Easter" to everyone?

[Patrick S]

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

Which socialist nations do Republicans hate and wish failure upon? Denmark? Man. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Old Billy Shakes was balls on when he said there was something rotten there! And that something is socialism! When I go to the secret conservative Republican meetings, they're railing against Denmark, man. All the time! Like.....for hours on end!

Oh! Oh! Finland? You bet! Drives 'em crazy how happy the Fins are! We'll be lucky if they don't introduce some neurotoxin into their water just to take 'em down a peg or two!

The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada? Jesus! Don't get me started on those four! What a bunch of troublemakers! Me and my neo-con, alt-right bastard buddies wish nothing but horrible things upon them, their children, and all future generations! Why? Two words: Social. Ism.

We haven't really gotten around to Ireland, Belgium, and New Zealand yet. But, I know it's only a matter of time! The unmitigated gall of THOSE three! Let me tell YOU! We won't forget about them, no siree-bob!

[Harry D]

None of those countries are socialist.

[Steadmund Brand]

While in no way would I defend what Trump said and it was deplorable, Bill Clintons actions are much worse. Having sex with an intern half his age in the oval office and then lying about it??? yechhh!

but even much worse is the sexual abuse charges. He had to settle on a rape charge and then all the other claims. Total slimeball.

Well to be fair then.... Trump's wife is about half his age....

and there have been SEVERAL charges against Trump as well, including sexual assault and rape that he has paid off... What does that make him?

Steadmund Brand

[Patrick S]

None of those countries are socialist.

Really? I guess economists around the world have it all wrong. Because they think that - from an economic perspective - those countries are some of the most socialist in the world.

Or.....maybe you're wrong. I guess we'll never know.

[John G]

True. Republicans hate the word 'socialism' so much that they wish socialist nations (pretty much all the successful ones) would fail. It's sickening how much hatred they have and I attribute some of that to them not getting out much and seeing the world. They fear the world to be honest.

Mike

Germany's deeply conservative Iron Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck, is widely regarded as creating the world's first welfare state in the 19th century, as ironic as that might seem to some. Doesn't this demonstrate that ideological definitions are no where near as clear cut as the modern Republican Party appear to believe?

[Harry D]

Really? I guess economists around the world have it all wrong. Because they think that - from an economic perspective - those countries are some of the most socialist in the world.

Or.....maybe you're wrong. I guess we'll never know.

A government is either socialist or it's not. The countries you've mentioned are all based on capitalist economies.