2017 White House Correspondents' Dinner

[Independent voter]

Man, it would've been so much better if Trump would've went, the whole world would've covered it. Maybe next year.

Trump's voter base hates the media so they like that he didn't go.

[Kalis]

Trump appealed to his voterbase by saying the "liberal elites" did not care about them, but that he did. Him going to a rally of "ordinary" people, rather than a room full of wealthy liberals from the media, is showing his voterbase that he is on their side.

It is quite a good political move from Trump, what would be better is if he did something useful as President, but baby steps.

[Wildtree]

The dinner itself in general is just one enormous circle jerk of so-called journalists talking about how they have the most important profession and the world would cease to exist without them. It rivals the Oscars as far as self-righteousness and smugness goes. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't blame him one bit for skipping it.

To set this part straight..
The dinner isn't your average dinner gala. It's a charity event. You pay a hefty price to plant your ass on a chair at one of those tables.
Generally the news outlet pays that fee. But it's essentially a giant fund raiser to finance the education of future journalists.

[Tijuana]

I disagree with the notion that Trump's use of free speech is a threat to free speech.

But the idea that the press doesn't have the right of free speech to be critical of not only Donald's use of free speech, but abuse of power administratively and complete disregard with not so subtle undertones of utter incompetence in the wake of his administration and his frankly bumbling leadership is pretty silly.

Be free speech! Free to touch the hearts, or in some cases the limbic centers of others.

Nice straw man. I never said a single word about how the press should not be critical of him. Not one. My argument, is that him being critical of them, is in no way a threat, or an impediment to their free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if he gets his tax plan through, expect another recession. His tax plan isn't even supported by REPUBLICANS, why do you think he would get it through.

Trickle down is the voodoo economics we have been using since fucking Reagan that Republicans push EVERY FUCKING CHANCE THEY GET. They think that if you cut taxes on the rich, they hire more people. That isn't how it works. That is a good fucking way to destroy the fucking country though.

No, YOU think the Russia stuff is nonsense. Meanwhile we have a few intelligence agencies investigating it and a couple other countries helping out. While there is no evidence, YET, and I cannot stress enough, YET, that Trump and Putin colluded. There are still a ton of people on his campaign, transition team, and cabinet that have pretty big ties to Putin that Trump could have gone through to get collusion.

- - - Updated - - -



Because Trump isn't funny but to anyone but himself. And he wouldn't like to be the fucking butt of every joke by every comedian he could find. He is literally the biggest fucking snowflake on the face of the planet. He is a fucking petulant child.

Trickle down is not an actual thing, and it's a poor description of supply side economics. Supply side just says growth is a better way to get more taxes than raising rates. It's not that complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying that literally threatening free speech is not a threat to free speech, because it's free speech?

I can see why your head hurts with so much cognitive dissonance in it.



Um, okay.

I have no idea how anyone could be so confused, as to think that one person's speech is a threat to another person's speech. You do know they can, and do respond to his statements, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Because there isn't anything "happening". You can't steal something you already own, and Trump Rallies are pretty much the literal definition of Preaching to the Choir. 99% of the people attending are already part of his voter base to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that "that" isn't really anything. Of course he would win the popular vote now. Everybody already knows the other guy lost. So obviously people are going to not express interest in voting for a loser. That kind of polling is about as dumb as asking people if they would have picked the same team to win the Superbowl after it already happened and everybody knows the results. Of course more people are going to switch to the winning team after the fact.

The rally was in Pennsylvania, in a district he didn't win.

[Orbitus]

Trickle down is not an actual thing, and it's a poor description of supply side economics. Supply side just says growth is a better way to get more taxes than raising rates. It's not that complicated.

And it has been proven not to work EVER. Over and over again, giving tax cuts to the rich doesn't give jobs. It pretty much gives them fatter wallets. It has been called trickle down since dumbass Reagan and it is fucking awful.

[Tijuana]

And it has been proven not to work EVER. Over and over again, giving tax cuts to the rich doesn't give jobs. It pretty much gives them fatter wallets. It has been called trickle down since dumbass Reagan and it is fucking awful.

It's worked four major times in US history, under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43. All saw increases of revenue to the treasury, even though rates were cut dramatically. What are you on about?

This is not about cutting taxes for the rich. This is about cutting taxes for everyone. You need to cut the low end, or else you don't get increased spending from them.

You are falling for a decades long Liberal lie. Don't. Educate yourself about what the actual tax rate changes were. For example, the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" factually cut taxes more for the lower brackets than they had ever been cut in history. In fact, it even raised the level before you even pay at all by 50%.

Don't believe everything you read in the paper, or hear on TV. Get the facts.

[Orbitus]

It's worked four major times in US history, under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43. All saw increases of revenue to the treasury, even though rates were cut dramatically. What are you on about?

This is not about cutting taxes for the rich. This is about cutting taxes for everyone. You need to cut the low end, or else you don't get increased spending from them.

You are falling for a decades long Liberal lie. Don't. Educate yourself about what the actual tax rate changes were. For example, the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" factually cut taxes more for the lower brackets than they had ever been cut in history. In fact, it even raised the level before you even pay at all by 50%.

Don't believe everything you read in the paper, or hear on TV. Get the facts.

If anyone needs to get any facts it is you. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about 95% of the time. It isn't a "liberal lie". There was a fucking study done that says that you are wrong. Even Reagan had to raise taxes after cutting them drastically. And Bush 43, didn't see any sort of growth, especially by the end of his fucking tenure.

[Surfd]

The rally was in Pennsylvania, in a district he didn't win.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that 99% of the people attending that rally are still likely to have been trump voters to begin with. Just because he lost the district doesn't mean he couldn't find enough choir to fill a rally to preach at.

[Mormolyce]

I have no idea how anyone could be so confused, as to think that one person's speech is a threat to another person's speech. You do know they can, and do respond to his statements, right?

Threatening free speech is a threat to free speech, because of this thing called a tautology.

Don't they teach you anything in... whatever school you presumably went to?

[GreenJesus]

I thought it was funny how the entire room was full of "privileged white people". Where is the diversity liberal journalists? SAD!

In other news... BREEAKING NEWS!! A DOG IS CURRENTLY CHASING A CAT!

[Deleted]

Hasan Minhaj?

[Tijuana]

Threatening free speech is a threat to free speech, because of this thing called a tautology.

Don't they teach you anything in... whatever school you presumably went to?

Hilarious. No, you could not be more wrong. Everyone has free speech, even the president. Complaining about things others say is not a threat to free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

If anyone needs to get any facts it is you. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about 95% of the time. It isn't a "liberal lie". There was a fucking study done that says that you are wrong. Even Reagan had to raise taxes after cutting them drastically. And Bush 43, didn't see any sort of growth, especially by the end of his fucking tenure.

Your use of cuss words doesn't make your claims any more true. Revenues factually went up, in each of those four cases, after rates were cut. When you multiply two numbers together, both numbers can impact the product. So, 8% of X, is often less money than 7% of Y. Taxing a bigger initial figure, is a better way to raise revenue than to take a larger piece of a smaller pie.

[Mormolyce]

Hilarious. No, you could not be more wrong. Everyone has free speech, even the president. Complaining about things others say is not a threat to free speech.

But threatening free speech is threatening free speech.

And nobody is impinging on his free speech. I don't see him being thrown in jail because of the things he said. And man if anyone has striven to earn that distinction...