United States went from the world's leader to a nagging distraction pushed to the side in the eyes of the world.
@ 3 months ago
Killeen, TX 76543, USA
must have been that year long apology & bow down tour of 2010
@ 3 months ago
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
You sound as stupid as that orange tinted pos in the White House. You can't find a photo of 44 not being on center stage around the world, especially G20, 8, 7, 5, or 6.
@ 3 months ago
@H20 - honest question.
do you think Trump is improving the US's standing in the world?
if yes, how?
@ 3 months ago
Chaska, MN 55318, USA
undetermined, to early; but the damage caused by 44 apologizing, waffling, inconsistency is established.
"use of chemical weapons, crosses the line..."
"Netanyahu is an ####..."
of course you'll give him a pass..
I didn't ask about your thoughts on Obama.
But since you brought him up: When he left office, the US was still considered the leader of the free world.
is that still true?
that statement alone.. Yes
the U. S. is still the leader of the free world.
Who's your pick?
Lee Hill, VA, USA
If the rest of the world doesn't seem to think we are the leader, we probably aren't.
Congrats Mr President.
a "Twitter" string with an EXTREME liberal bias?
wait till the next disaster, see who gets the first phone call....
H20,,, You're right, it's probably too early to judge Trump's effect on world opinion. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that that Obama's place in history will be enhanced by following Bush and preceding Trump.
@ 3 months ago
Yellow Springs, OH 45387, USA
can't help,, barring a war
How does a Twitter string have bias?
This is a reporter from Australia with observations from the G20.
Don't like their observations? I'm sure there's a safe space where you can hear about how awesome he is doing.
press = fair/non partisan/even handed/truthful..... except FOX of course
Does this "reporter" have a political bias? Do a little research. You'll find some interesting stuff.
@ 3 months ago
But that seems to be todays norm. "Journalists" telling us how to feel about a story rather than just reporting the story. Journalism seems to be a dead art. Sad.
After all, a twitter thread is considered evidence to some.
That last statement is hilarious, considering Twitter now passes for presidential statements.
Ironically enough, some of them likely will be used as evidence.
Who cares if the journo has bias.
Is the reporting accurate? If it is, bias doesn't matter.
If it's inaccurate because of the bias, them it matters.
Doesn't matter if it's left or right bias, btw.
So it comes back to the reporting.
Was it accurate?
@taco re Uhlmann - sounds pretty moderate
too bad you don't apply the same test to "conservative" leaning reporters and network. "if it's accurate, it doesn't matter...".
unless of course it's FOX
now we have to research the story, the delivery method, the journalist background, the mother, the 2nd grade teacher, ....
just to perhaps satisfy the appearance of not a liberal tilt.
how many conservative leaning twits where eliminated? follows
I do apply the same test to conservative leaning outlets.
Some are accurate. That's refreshing.
However, many are bullshït peddlers on top of bullshït mountain.
most right? while liberals and their comedian support staff are infallible, great research skal. we should never overlook that you're an admitted socialist, with the balls to admit it, unlike some of your minn. & tx buddies.
Preparation H can help.
Funny thing is i'm not actually a socialist (you'll beg to differ, but IDGAF). The meaning of that label has been contorted and stretched so much it has lost meaning.
You probably came to that conclusion because of my stance on healthcare. The "socialist" systems are substantially cheaper with as good or better outcomes. Our system is amazing for very few, and not so great for
Everyone else. We have far too many people going bankrup b/c medical bills. That doesn't happen *anywhere* else in the developed world. Employers are straddled with high insurance costs.
People don't start businesses because they'll lose their insurance - hurting innovation.
Blinding supporting our current system doesn't make sense to me for those reasons.
Would taxes go up? Absolutely. I guess supporting anything that makes takes go up makes me a socialist. SMH
Nevermind that you or your employer won't be paying premiums anymore and you'll actually have
More money in your pocket to spend to your heart's content.
1. you believe everyone has the right to absolute healthcare, just for being born, without having to contribute anything. Solution, just tax those who have more, somehow you conclude that leaves them more money.
2. The definition of socialism has changed, only in the Democrat party. Taking from those who earn to give to those who don't, to level the field is still socialism.
Work ethic, commitment, risk, all are advantages and do not deserve to be rewarded.
I'm guessing, in true democrat fashion, higher taxes wouldn't apply to those working in healthcare.
There's a solution, cap healthcare wages at minimum wage, that'll help reduce cost.
(That's still not the definition of socialism, no matter how much you want it to be)
But let's do it. Seriously. I'll cut back my hours, spend more time consulting, and you can enjoy all the immigrant doctors coming in to work at that low wage.
Great plan. Beautiful plan. The best plan. MAGA!
political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
yep, wouldn't be much difference would it?
what makes you think, you deserve more than the waitress at Denny's?
Huge difference. Taxation isn't socialism.
The market does, however.
But hey, if you want a waitress at Denny's shoving a tube down your throat when you need it, be my guest.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall
heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion
to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Written about progressive taxation by a true socialist.
debatable intent, I'm guessing you're positive of yours.
Yeah...so David Friedman argues that Adam Smith was arguing for flat tax in the second paragraph but conveniently leaves off the "not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion."
Also, the Kos article he was referring to in his blog has several Adam Smith quotes.
He quotes the first one. He quotes the third one. He jumps right over the one I posted above.
I wonder why...
Tl;dr - Blogger complaining about libs misrepresenting Adam Smith can't help but misrepresent Adam Smith in his rebuttal.
Yes, I'm positive this guy is full of ####.