Trump backpedals furiously on Assange

[Felya]

I approve of Wikileaks' strong stance against leaks.
I await burger king's manifesto denouncing burgers, the KKK's demand for white genocide, the NAACP advocating slavery, and the pope declaring he's an atheist.

It's not actually new. Assange him self said to not trust any government leaks about his rape case as well.

[Noxx79]

It's not actually new. Assange him self said to not trust any government leaks about his rape case as well.

Geeee..... I wonder why...

[Felya]

I’m not sure what you mean in your first sentence. Businesses are forced to hire illegal aliens because of the low cost of labour. I’m not defending big businesses here, but if there is 100 illegal immigrants willing to do the job at ¼ (or less) of the cost, why not hire them? When you take illegal immigrants out of the country and give those jobs to the middle class, you will have to pay a livable wage which makes the cost of goods and services increase.

I get this, what I don't get is the part where it no longer is too expensive.

If you keep illegal aliens in those jobs, not only is unemployment rate much higher, but they aren’t paying taxes and businesses can continue to make a large profit.

Again, you are missing the part about Americans being too expensive. You are not resolving the issue, just listing other problems.

For a business to immediately fire all illegal immigrants and only hire American workers would be quite substantial to their profits. Not only are they now increasing their labour costs, but they will not be able to compete with other companies who still use illegal immigrants in production. So the two choices are 1) hire illegal immigrants to keep prices down and make a profit, or 2) only hire American citizens, keep high labour and production costs and sell at a higher price (and eventually go bankrupt).

This doesn't make make sense, you claim both, that they are forced to hire illegals or go bankrupt and that if they hire Americans they will have substantial profits. That doesn't make any sense... Then your second choice explicitly contradicts your first sentence. Seriously... wtf?

If you remove illegals from specific employment sectors and those sectors are not seeing automation, you get American citizens or legal immigrants to work those jobs. You cannot have just one company hire only American citizens because it is expensive and they would not be able to compete with the other companies who still use low-wage labour. By removing all illegal immigrants, businesses would have to increase their prices across the board, which should and will happen.

All companies abide by the same rules, no one is suggesting picking on one or the other. Again... wtf?

I’m not sure what your definition of sexism is but if you can hold someone to their word, you better be able to hold that same person to his actions. But, going by his admissions, Trump stated in an Advocate interview that:
(http://www.advocate.com/election/201...-gays-mexicans)
You can call it nepotism if you’d like, but someone smart like him obviously has smart friends, and smart, intelligent people is who he wants working for him. I would be much more confident if I knew the people who were working for me were loyal and intelligent, and not some washed-up politician from the GOP.

Trump is smart, so he must have smart friends. WTF again...

Would it be ok, then, if he was accused of groping a man instead of a woman?

No, but it wouldn't be misogyny. Yet another, WTF!?

I did a bit of digging on Jill Harth and uncovered that her case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. She also gave an interview last year about it:
(http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/excl...sault-lawsuit/)
Not sure what there is to “conform to my opinion”. Thoughts?

The part where your link pretends its a coincidence, that there was a lawsuit with her husband's company. When in reality, she states that it wasn't a coincidence, but terms of settlement of the other case, to drop this one. That's what confirming your opinion means. Provide the source that mentions the case as possible related, instead of explicitly being so.

[Kelz]

I get this, what I don't get is the part where it no longer is too expensive.

Again, you are missing the part about Americans being too expensive. You are not resolving the issue, just listing other problems.

What exactly aren't you understanding? I know Americans are expensive. I know hiring Americans will increase the cost of labour and the cost of goods and services. What issue is created when you take illegal immigrants out of the scenario?

This doesn't make make sense, you claim both, that they are forced to hire illegals or go bankrupt and that if they hire Americans they will have substantial profits. That doesn't make any sense... Then your second choice explicitly contradicts your first sentence. Seriously... wtf?

I did not say they would have substantial profits. I said that only hiring Americans would be substantial to their profits. If businesses kept the current business model and only hired American citizens or legal immigrants, it would be too costly and no profits would be made. That is substantial to their profits. If they want to see substantial increases to their profits with that other model, they would need to increase their cost of goods and services to compete with the costs of labour.

All companies abide by the same rules, no one is suggesting picking on one or the other. Again... wtf?

Oh they do, do they?

Trump is smart, so he must have smart friends. WTF again...

Paraphrasing, but thanks for your input on that. Read the quote again. You were just lambasting that a persons words means more than his actions, so by your method, Trump wants only the best and brightest working for him. What is to fault about that? You could call it Nepotism if perhaps he hired a friend just because he was a friend. There is no law that states you must only put someone you don't know in your administration.

No, but it wouldn't be misogyny. Yet another, WTF!?

You went from racism, to sexism, to groping men, to misogyny. I'm having trouble keeping my delicate mind up to speed.

The part where your link pretends its a coincidence, that there was a lawsuit with her husband's company. When in reality, she states that it wasn't a coincidence, but terms of settlement of the other case, to drop this one. That's what confirming your opinion means. Provide the source that mentions the case as possible related, instead of explicitly being so.

Not to be that guy, but your grammar needs a bit of work because I am having trouble understanding your question or statement. There was no agreement to drop her lawsuit in order to get her partners lawsuit to settle. That to me sounds like you are spinning this to fit your narrative. The suit was dropped voluntarily. End of it.

[Felya]

What exactly aren't you understanding? I know Americans are expensive. I know hiring Americans will increase the cost of labour and the cost of goods and services. What issue is created when you take illegal immigrants out of the scenario?

The part where you claimed they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business. According to your statement that they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business, removing illegals would mean they go out of business. That's the part I don't get, it's underwear gnome logic:

1) Remove illegals, while corporations are forced to hire illegals or go out of business.
2) ????
----
Profit! And work for Americans is no longer too expensive!

What's step two? What cases them to go from hiring Americans means going out of business, to hiring Americans means profit? They can hire Americans now, if hiring Americans will increase their profit. Removing illegals doesn't help the issue of them being forced to hire illegals or go out of business.

I did not say they would have substantial profits. I said that only hiring Americans would be substantial to their profits. If businesses kept the current business model and only hired American citizens or legal immigrants, it would be too costly and no profits would be made. That is substantial to their profits. If they want to see substantial increases to their profits with that other model, they would need to increase their cost of goods and services to compete with the costs of labour.

Why don't they change the model now, if hiring America would be profitable? You are not making sense... if they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business, they will go out of business if illegals are removed. The answer is they choose, not forced to maximize profits and there is absolutely nothing that would cause increasing expenses while profits are that tight, to cause additional profit. Unless you explain where they are going to get the money, to hire workers you claim they simply cannot, without going out business... you will continue to make no sense...

Your claims that they will make up the amount in a future, makes no sense either. This wouldn't be a pay increase for, the whole country, but very few who currently refuse to take those jobs for that pay. This would hit grocery stores more than anything else and lower spending, because you are further pricing the middle class and lower out of the market. That's why Trump told you Americans pay is too high!

Oh they do, do they?

Yes, they do. Just like Trump didn't pay federal taxes for the last 20 years, because he is so smart he lost a billion in the 90s, every corporation can do it. Just like every corporation can skirt law and do the whole 'too big to fail'. So, when as Trump suggested making loopholes redundant, it will make it that those like Trump, will no longer need to use loopholes to pay nothing. Yet, you somehow think, these same corporations will hire Americans at a loss, because... their cost of operations increased... what?

Paraphrasing, but thanks for your input on that. Read the quote again. You were just lambasting that a persons words means more than his actions, so by your method, Trump wants only the best and brightest working for him. What is to fault about that? You could call it Nepotism if perhaps he hired a friend just because he was a friend. There is no law that states you must only put someone you don't know in your administration.

Yes, I am saying that Trump's word that he is "horrible with the women" and the actions you are hand waving, evidance. That's why unlike you, I don't have to say nonsense like "he is smart, so he has smart friends"...

You went from racism, to sexism, to groping men, to misogyny. I'm having trouble keeping my delicate mind up to speed.

Quote me talking about racism... You cannot? Care to explain why you are having trouble keeping up instead? (hint: bullshit isn't easy for consistency. It tends to be runny, see cow pie.)

Not to be that guy, but your grammar needs a bit of work because I am having trouble understanding your question or statement. There was no agreement to drop her lawsuit in order to get her partners lawsuit to settle. That to me sounds like you are spinning this to fit your narrative. The suit was dropped voluntarily. End of it.

No, that's what she claimed. Did you miss the implication in your link or did you just give the first link result for 'dismissed'? It's not my grammar, you don't know what I'm talking about, because you didn't read your own link.

[Mormolyce]

Random question - not about the thread, but the Enterprise Episode. That wasn't the theme of Star Trek Enterprise series, was it?

Enterprise's theme was that "faith of the heart" song, they replaced the whole credits and song with something militaristic, and all the scenes of scientific development and advancement got replaced with war and suffering.

It's pretty awesome work IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly aren't you understanding? I know Americans are expensive. I know hiring Americans will increase the cost of labour and the cost of goods and services. What issue is created when you take illegal immigrants out of the scenario?

Increasing the cost of goods and services to kick out dirty Mexicans - fine.

Increasing the cost of goods and services to give American citizens a liveable minimum wage - UNACCEPTABLE!!!

-Conservative logic.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, you're right. My elderly mother called it during the primaries that she thought something could be wrong with his health that he's been hiding from us or never looked into properly. I wish that they'd order some kind of examination before inaugeration like an MRI /cat scan or something, but I don't know if they have the ability to insist that he get a checkup by an impartial doctor.

I just put it down to garden variety narcissism personally.

[Kryos]

The above summary of how Trump will be slid out of office is breathtaking in it's brevity. With Pence waiting in the wings, Trump and his ridiculous shenanigans are looking ready for the impeachment-block.
- - - Updated - - -
Random question - not about the thread, but the Enterprise Episode. That wasn't the theme of Star Trek Enterprise series, was it?

No, that was a single episode in an alternative dark universe. They even changed the trailer.

This is the trailer of the Enterprise series:

hopeful, inspiring, peaceful.

That's why this episodes special trailer it was such a contrast:

And that's how I feel right now. Like we entered a dark mirror world where crazy is the new normal.

[Sky High]

it's easy to tell when Trump is lying when he flatly says wrong. regardless I wonder when he's actually if ever going to roll back those comments on not trusting his own intelligence network.

[Kryos]

Re-do the election?

Better wait 6 months with that, then even the hardcore Trump fans will see and feel that they got played. Right now they still believe in their Cheeto Jesus.
Re-Election with new candidates would be fine. No corrupt Hillary and lying Don the Con. Pretty much anybody would be better then those two.

- - - Updated - - -

it's easy to tell when Trump is lying when he flatly says wrong. regardless I wonder when he's actually if ever going to roll back those comments on not trusting his own intelligence network.

Trump has no plan, no ideology, no concept, he has the attention span of a toddler, his only interest is himself and to a much smaller extend his family. He will do anything to get money, attention and needs admiration and people praising him and if he doesn't get enough of it, he will just praise himself. He perfectly fits in the description of a person with functional narcissistic personality disorder ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcis...ality_disorder ) and first signs of dementia . He will run America like his Casinos, to the ground and then leave the smoldering ruins and will blame others because that's what he always did all his life. He will even praise himself after failing.

If you believe in anything Trump said, you made the first major mistake.

[FeedsOnDevTears]

Yep. It's damning.

This report was put out by literally the exact same jackholes who have spent the last eight years lying to Congress, spying on Congress, lying to the people, and lying about spying on the people. And it contains jack for evidence. Why should anyone believe it? Just because we really want to? That's how Trump works, not how his opposition should work.

Sure, Trump is a stupid jackass too, but that doesn't mean charges against him are right just because they're directed against him. These intelligence agencies need to put up, or shut up. If some other nations government that was friendly with Putin was publishing reports about how their newly elected pro-US president was secretly elected by the CIA with no evidence to back it up, they'd be laughed out of the room.

But now we're supposed to believe it, because booga-booga scary Russia? If the NSA really wants to hurt Trump, why not leak his tax returns?

[Kelz]

The part where you claimed they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business. According to your statement that they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business, removing illegals would mean they go out of business. That's the part I don't get, it's underwear gnome logic:

1) Remove illegals, while corporations are forced to hire illegals or go out of business.
2) ????
----
Profit! And work for Americans is no longer too expensive!

What's step two? What cases them to go from hiring Americans means going out of business, to hiring Americans means profit? They can hire Americans now, if hiring Americans will increase their profit. Removing illegals doesn't help the issue of them being forced to hire illegals or go out of business.



Why don't they change the model now, if hiring America would be profitable? You are not making sense... if they are forced to hire illegals or go out of business, they will go out of business if illegals are removed. The answer is they choose, not forced to maximize profits and there is absolutely nothing that would cause increasing expenses while profits are that tight, to cause additional profit. Unless you explain where they are going to get the money, to hire workers you claim they simply cannot, without going out business... you will continue to make no sense...

Your claims that they will make up the amount in a future, makes no sense either. This wouldn't be a pay increase for, the whole country, but very few who currently refuse to take those jobs for that pay. This would hit grocery stores more than anything else and lower spending, because you are further pricing the middle class and lower out of the market. That's why Trump told you Americans pay is too high!



Yes, they do. Just like Trump didn't pay federal taxes for the last 20 years, because he is so smart he lost a billion in the 90s, every corporation can do it. Just like every corporation can skirt law and do the whole 'too big to fail'. So, when as Trump suggested making loopholes redundant, it will make it that those like Trump, will no longer need to use loopholes to pay nothing. Yet, you somehow think, these same corporations will hire Americans at a loss, because... their cost of operations increased... what?




Yes, I am saying that Trump's word that he is "horrible with the women" and the actions you are hand waving, evidance. That's why unlike you, I don't have to say nonsense like "he is smart, so he has smart friends"...



Quote me talking about racism... You cannot? Care to explain why you are having trouble keeping up instead? (hint: bullshit isn't easy for consistency. It tends to be runny, see cow pie.)



No, that's what she claimed. Did you miss the implication in your link or did you just give the first link result for 'dismissed'? It's not my grammar, you don't know what I'm talking about, because you didn't read your own link.

Sorry for the late reply, I was occupied over the last week.

But, to answer your questions (as I'm sure there are many, tbh I didn't read any of your quote because I'm heading out), I just have this to say to you and everyone else who is salty about the elections:

http://i.imgur.com/l6M8mgH.gif