Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[rda]

He's basically saying, "The media reported on something Trump said, this is fake news" which is just a ridiculous and trollish statement from him.

If I said just the above without the specifics, then yes it would be trollish, but I provided specifics as to why the hysteria is nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

You then immediately tried to justify why he said it.

And? His negative was small. So?

[beanman12345]

And? His negative was small. So?

You defended him being stupid. This isn't hard dude, at least try a little to comprehend

[rda]

You defended him being stupid. This isn't hard dude, at least try a little to comprehend

I said the words were stupid, but that this is not the end of the world. Got lost in category labels, oh, what a big, big deal. I don't know what is your problem with this.

When Trump will do something seriously bad, I'll say that this is seriously bad. For now most of what he is doing is fine, and the media going crazy and reciting stories of ten-thousand-things he did so, so, so very wrong is just the media going crazy and posting heavily exaggerated and distorted nonsense.

[beanman12345]

Whatever you say shill.

[Infraction]

[Kiri]

One more case of media hysteria of late related to nature were Amazon forest fires.

The fires are ignited every year as part of land use, their scale actually went down significantly over the years, but the media found a single month of a single province that was noticeably bigger than in the previous year and found this reason enough to be going crazy for weeks, posting story after story of nonsense.

As I say, every damn day.

So, you have better data than them, then? Because this piece here has quite a bit of it, and according to them it's not just a single province with noticeably higher rates than the previous years, but rather shows that the number of fires overall is the highest in ten years and acknowledge that it was much worse before that. They also show that some intervening years had gotten reasonably close, but an overall downward trend.
The piece further explains that such fires are common and often deliberate, and show exactly which regions are experiencing more fires than last year, and which fewer, with 4 provinces showing more than double the amount of fires. However, they look at the whole year until the date of publishing, not a month-by-month analysis, which may look differently. ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767 )
Hence, again, I would like to see the data you are referring to. If you accuse 'the media' of blowing a story out of proportion, you need to present actual proof of that, not just saying they do.

[Redwyrm]

My God. I have seen some defend the undefendable but holy hell RDA takes the cake.

"Alabama to get a bit of a beat down". Maybe Trump knows where Alabama is but, "BEAT DOWN"? How can you twist his words into anything intelligent or reasonable? Beat down suggests Trump is saying Alabama is going to get hit HARD. Even the National Weather Service had to come out and call out Trump and say Alabama is in no way in any danger. If for nothing else than to avoid causing a panic from people who haven't been following the storms track.

Trump's an idiot. Stop trying to put a shine on the turd.

[Crispin]

One more case of media hysteria of late related to nature were Amazon forest fires.

The fires are ignited every year as part of land use, their scale actually went down significantly over the years, but the media found a single month of a single province that was noticeably bigger than in the previous year and found this reason enough to be going crazy for weeks, posting story after story of nonsense.

As I say, every damn day.

How is this even remotely related to this topic?

You saying they're lying doesnt prove they are. Try harder.

- - - Updated - - -

My God. I have seen some defend the undefendable but holy hell RDA takes the cake.

"Alabama to get a bit of a beat down". Maybe Trump knows where Alabama is but, "BEAT DOWN"? How can you twist his words into anything intelligent or reasonable? Beat down suggests Trump is saying Alabama is going to get hit HARD. Even the National Weather Service had to come out and call out Trump and say Alabama is in no way in any danger. If for nothing else than to avoid causing a panic from people who haven't been following the storms track.

Trump's an idiot. Stop trying to put a shine on the turd.

Give it a sec and he'll tell you what Trump really meant. Apparently President straight talker is having a hard time getting anything coherent across, and require Russian aid to tell the Americans what he really means It's all the medias fault because they're lying about forrest fires, obviously.

[Dontrike]

One more case of media hysteria of late related to nature were Amazon forest fires.

The fires are ignited every year as part of land use, their scale actually went down significantly over the years, but the media found a single month of a single province that was noticeably bigger than in the previous year and found this reason enough to be going crazy for weeks, posting story after story of nonsense.

As I say, every damn day.

The fuck does that have to do with Trump or this thread?

[Crispin]

I said the words were stupid, but that this is not the end of the world. Got lost in category labels, oh, what a big, big deal. I don't know what is your problem with this.

When Trump will do something seriously bad, I'll say that this is seriously bad. For now most of what he is doing is fine, and the media going crazy and reciting stories of ten-thousand-things he did so, so, so very wrong is just the media going crazy and posting heavily exaggerated and distorted nonsense.

Ofcourse you think that most of what he's doing is fine. Your President is having journalists catch bullets most of the time, grabbing pussies and saying neo-nazi's are fine people would be "doing good" in your world.

[rda]

So, you have better data than them, then? Because this piece here has quite a bit of it, and according to them it's not just a single province with noticeably higher rates than the previous years, but rather shows that the number of fires overall is the highest in ten years and acknowledge that it was much worse before that. They also show that some intervening years had gotten reasonably close, but an overall downward trend.
The piece further explains that such fires are common and often deliberate, and show exactly which regions are experiencing more fires than last year, and which fewer, with 4 provinces showing more than double the amount of fires. However, they look at the whole year until the date of publishing, not a month-by-month analysis, which may look differently. ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767 )
Hence, again, I would like to see the data you are referring to. If you accuse 'the media' of blowing a story out of proportion, you need to present actual proof of that, not just saying they do.

This is the data:



This is what NASA says about the fires:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ires-in-brazil

"As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data."

You can check the db if you want, it's there, too.

This is all known and has been known.

- - - Updated - - -

My God. I have seen some defend the undefendable but holy hell RDA takes the cake.

"Alabama to get a bit of a beat down". Maybe Trump knows where Alabama is but, "BEAT DOWN"? How can you twist his words into anything intelligent or reasonable? Beat down suggests Trump is saying Alabama is going to get hit HARD. Even the National Weather Service had to come out and call out Trump and say Alabama is in no way in any danger. If for nothing else than to avoid causing a panic from people who haven't been following the storms track.

Trump's an idiot. Stop trying to put a shine on the turd.

I have no idea how anyone was supposed to take all that from your single phrase of "Does Trump not know where Alabama is on a map?!?"

If your point was that Trump perhaps knows where Alabama is, but that Alabama is still too far from the hurricane and the impact from the hurricane on Alabama will likely be small or negligible, then I suggest it would be better if you said that directly. Your point would lose the edge, but that way you'd be fair.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, here's more on Amazon fires, if anyone is interested.

The BBC article you link, Kiri, is kind of fine, save for the overemphasizing of partial data for 2019 that stems from a couple of instances of questionable data. Questionable data isn't BBC's fault, and to their credit they publish graphs that put things in context. Eg, when they say things like: "Nasa, which provides Inpe with its active fire data, confirmed recordings from its satellite sensors also indicated 2019 had been the most active year for almost a decade", at least they say it under a graph that shows that "the most active year for almost a decade" is actually pretty tame when compared to the previous decades. So, if you read the BBC article *in full* it actually isn't quite so bad. Other news sources are much worse, they just say "the most active year since 2010" and do a couple of similar cuts and then rage over those parts omitting the context that would show that these parts aren't bad.

But there is a bigger issue here, which is why I am writing this post. The tail of the data for 2019 used by BBC is actually bogus, it comes from an unverified estimate. The source of the graphs is INPE. They have multiple programs, satellites, all that stuff. The tail of the data for 2019 comes from their program for rapid response, called DETER. That program is designated for doing rapid response, not for counting fires directly. The counts come from a different program, called PRODES, which validates raw data provided by DETER and other data, this runs yearly and provides results that are actually accurate.

What's wrong with using DETER directly? Well, right off the bat, it is completely fine for DETER to report the same fire multiple times, because this is a rapid response program. More, this actually happens often, eg, DETER cannot see through clouds, so whenever clouds cover a particular fire temporarily, when they uncover it after some time, this counts as a new fire. Etc.

What happened is that someone in INPE took the data provided by DETER, grafted that unproofed data right past the proofed data for previous years, producing an internal document whose purpose is internal, then leaked that internal document to the press. The press took the tail for 2019 at face value and started reporting disasters. Even though even that unproofed tail does not look quite like a disaster, but whatever.

NASA also counts fires and they do this differently than INPE. This is why they report that nothing out of the ordinary actually happens.

I hope this helps shed some light onto this story.

- - - Updated - - -

And, just by the way, it is pretty clear why the media jumped onto this BS wagon of Amazon forest fires so readily - they really liked graphs like this one:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cp...eforest-nc.png

...where there is an arrow telling the reader "this all happened because of Bolsonaro".

Yet if we actually wait for PRODES to crawl through the data at the end of year, we'll see the bar for 2019 go down to completely normal levels.

[Dontrike]

And, just by the way, it is pretty clear why the media jumped onto this BS wagon of Amazon forest fires so readily - they really liked graphs like this one:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cp...eforest-nc.png

...where there is an arrow telling the reader "this all happened because of Bolsonaro".

Yet if we actually wait for PRODES to crawl through the data at the end of year, we'll see the bar for 2019 go down to completely normal levels.

Again, what in the hell does this have to do with the thread? This isn't the "Media Shitshow Thread". Stop randomly posting things that have nothing to do with this thread.

[Shalcker]

Again, what in the hell does this have to do with the thread? This isn't the "Media Shitshow Thread". Stop randomly posting things that have nothing to do with this thread.

"Trump shitshow" is, in large part, shaped by "Media shitshow" (including directly when he retweets something he had seen on Fox).

[Dontrike]

"Trump shitshow" is, in large part, shaped by "Media shitshow" (including directly when he retweets something he had seen on Fox).

No. The media talking about the fires in the Amazon have nothing to do with this. What you just played was six degrees of separation from Trump and somehow randomly talking about those fires somehow makes sense in a thread dedicated to Trump.

At that point the media also talks about Justin Bieber so I guess we can post that shit too. See, look! Your argument and logic are terrible. Weeeee!

[Rozz]

Please keep news related to Trump. The Amazon forest fires aren't appropriate for this thread unless an article involves commentary from him.

[rda]

Please keep news related to Trump. The Amazon forest fires aren't appropriate for this thread unless an article involves commentary from him.

OK. The angle on Amazon forest fires was that "Trump bad" is media hysterics, and Amazon fires were a separate example of such hysterics, but fine, from now on, only things directly related to Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

With this...

Apparently, there is a new story in WaPo that calls Trump a racist. I linked the transcript from the NYT townhall meeting up the thread, where they openly say that since Mueller's investigation has finished and the topic of Trump's supposed conspiracy with Russia is now over, their overall canvas for the next one-two years needs to change and the new topic is going to be Trump's supposed racism. It seems NYT aren't in this alone and WaPo is doing the same thing.

So, when there are no news, they revive the old topic of Trump being supposedly racist. This time the article is on those tweets towards the squad that we all discussed to death.

Trump's reaction is, as usual, on twitter:

Tweet 1: The Amazon Washington Post did a story that I brought racist attacks against the “Squad.” No, they brought racist attacks against our Nation. All I do is call them out for the horrible things they have said. The Democrats have become the Party of the Squad!

Tweet 2: The LameStream Media has gone totally CRAZY! They write whatever they want, seldom have sources (even though they say they do), never do “fact checking” anymore, and are only looking for the “kill.” They take good news and make it bad. They are now beyond Fake, they are Corrupt..

Tweet 3: ....The good news is that we are winning. Our real opponent is not the Democrats, or the dwindling number of Republicans that lost their way and got left behind, our primary opponent is the Fake News Media. In the history of our Country, they have never been so bad!

And you can see right away the reason I posted this at all. In his last tweet Trump says exactly what I say all the time - the primary opponent is the media. And he is absolutely correct in saying this.

[Dontrike]

And you can see right away the reason I posted this at all. In his last tweet Trump says exactly what I say all the time - the primary opponent is the media. And he is absolutely correct in saying this.

You can keep trying to make that connection to something that has nothing to do with the topic all you want, but it doesn't matter. Your attempts are lame and your logic is flawed.

As for you complaining someone called Trump a racist well.....there's a history of him being racist so why don't you do a bit of research as to why people believe that and the things he has said and did to be called that.

[rda]

Right, except for it to have posed a risk Dorian would have had to make a hard left at PR, a hard right in the gulf and then head for AL. At no time was it in danger as Trump implied.

Here's the last picture of Dorian:



https://twitter.com/NHC_Atlantic/sta...99501167857665

And here's the picture from Aug, 30:



https://twitter.com/NHC_Atlantic/sta...52025673539584

It is quite easy to see why Alabama was mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

As for you complaining someone called Trump a racist well.....there's a history of him being racist so why don't you do a bit of research as to why people believe that and the things he has said and did to be called that.

I did, he is not.

[Redwyrm]

I have no idea how anyone was supposed to take all that from your single phrase of "Does Trump not know where Alabama is on a map?!?"

If your point was that Trump perhaps knows where Alabama is, but that Alabama is still too far from the hurricane and the impact from the hurricane on Alabama will likely be small or negligible, then I suggest it would be better if you said that directly. Your point would lose the edge, but that way you'd be fair.

It's the same argument. Either:

A) Trump knows where Alabama is but doesn't know where the hurricane is, or

B) Trump doesn't know where Alabama.

It's one or the other and neither can be explained in any way other than stupidity. Especially since he has been meeting with FEMA about said hurricane. Anybody who has been watching this storm has known for the past three days that Dorian is not heading towards the Gulf.

[Breccia]

President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan has apparently asked the US envoy to show him the deal Trump is trying to work out with the Taliban. Reports also say, since that request, he's seen it.

Fine.

Question: why did he have to ask to see it? Why wasn't he part of the process the entire way? I'm fairly sure he's in charge of the government, and the Taliban are not.

[rda]

As for you complaining someone called Trump a racist well.....there's a history of him being racist so why don't you do a bit of research as to why people believe that and the things he has said and did to be called that.

To add to my - I did, he is not:

Thekri's example from twenty years ago comes closest to making Trump racist, but even that example falls short of it. Everything else is weaker and 99% of it is just bogus garbage.