Plan B Forum

What Trump said when asked about his plan for child care:


How the New York Times reported on what he said:


Why didn't they just write an answer for him in advance; that would have saved them the rewrite of the verbal diarrhea that fell from his mouth.

At what point did the mainstream press decide that he would only ever get the kid glove treatment?

I’m so fucking sick of him calling this country a failing nation. Fuck that fuckwad!

I’m suspending my moratorium on swearing as relates to speaking about this tangerine traitor.

All those who believe that any money this country might take in from taxes (which, by the way, Donny-boy, are called 'tariffs') on goods coming in from other nations is going to be earmarked for child care, stand on your hands and clap your feet. 

And what'cha gonna do when the other foreign countries start slapping their own tariffs on all the stuff that we're going to try to sell them?

-"BB"-

Tarriffs are ALWAYS passed on to the customer. It is just another income stream from the American consumer to the Federal coffers.

If the customer will not pay the higher cost for those tariffed goods, then they don't come into the country. That tariffs on imports will eliminate the deficits is just smoke, not even any mirrors. It goes right in the same box with the promise "I am going to build a big beautiful wall and Mexico will pay for it"

snailgate

Re the OP:

Parker Molloy piece at TNR nails it:

This “sanewashing” of Trump’s statements isn’t just poor journalism; it’s a form of misinformation that poses a threat to democracy. By continually reframing Trump’s incoherent and often dangerous rhetoric as conventional political discourse, major news outlets are failing in their duty to inform the public and are instead providing cover for increasingly erratic behavior from a former—and potentially future—president.

The consequences of this journalistic malpractice extend far beyond misleading headlines. By laundering Trump’s words in this fashion, the media is actively participating in the erosion of our shared reality. When major news outlets consistently present a polished version of Trump’s statements, they create an alternate narrative that exists alongside the unfiltered truth available on social media and in unedited footage.

Voters who rely solely on traditional news sources are presented with a version of Trump that bears little resemblance to reality. They see a former president who, while controversial, appears to operate within the bounds of normal political discourse—or at worst, is breaking with it in some kind of refreshing manner. You can see this folie à deux at work in a recent Times piece occasioned by Trump’s amplification of social media posts alleging that Harris owed her career to the provision of “blowjobs”: “Though he has a history of making crass insults about his opponents, the reposts signal Mr. Trump’s willingness to continue to shatter longstanding norms of political speech.” Meanwhile, those who seek out primary sources encounter a starkly different figure—one prone to conspiracy theories, personal attacks, and extreme rhetoric.

Full article here, if you want it.

When I first started my college career the NY Times was considered a good place to find primary source material. Not now. The editors there seem to want to compete with People magazine.

If the video below doesn't play, here is the link.

In case you'd like to see Trump saying what Scooter quoted in the OP...



Link to video.

Apart from anything else she put the cost of childcare at $122 billion - if GNP is about $26 trillion then childcare is about 0.5% so it's hardly important in the great scheme of things but obviously very important on an individual level.

Trump's idea that he can solve all this by imposing tariffs on imports is just farcical. There will of course be retaliation; those who want 85" TVs already have them; and if you want the 90" when it comes out next year (or wherever they are now - I lose track) just wait six months and the price will come down so that any tariffs are swallowed.

But to get back to the original point - that news outlets such as NYT are treating Trump's utterings as normal political stuff and translating when they should just be pointing out what a fucking idiot the man is - they are between the traditional rock and hard place. If Trump and Harris have approximately 50% of the popular vote each that is something like 80 million votes each. I'm guessing - and I don't think I'm far wrong - that 70 million on each side are going to vote for their guy or gal regardless of what NYT, CNN, Fox, WaPo or Taylor Swift says. If a piece about child care is to be influential - and yes, there is a discussion to be had - then I think the hope is that among the 20 million 'swing' votes there is some element of rationality. If reasonable news outlets just stay on the 'Trump is a washed up turd of low intelligence and zero conventional morality' message then two things will happen. Much of his base will take this as yet another sign that he's sticking it to the libs - 'He's our guy' - and encourage them to vote. And the 10 million we want to influence will be 'So what else is new - we knew that' so not much will happen.

Maybe it is wishful thinking but it seems to me that the best way to get to that 10 million on each side who retain some rationality is to translate Trump's gibberish into real words and then point out the foolishness. I'm not sure they have a better choice. And from my point of view I want Trump's 10 million to think 'maybe he's not so smart after all' and sit on their hands; and I want the Harris 10 million to think 'we need to keep this moron out' and vote accordingly.

I just got the required early education training in my more regulated than most commonwealth and it was not even 40 hours of training, all online and nearly impossible to fail unless your IQ was such that you'd have been recruited into McNamara's Morons. (I never knew about that sad episode in history, and was heart sickened to learn it - thanks to whomever posted that Tik Tok here.)

Nobody requires 6 years of college for early childhood caregiving, I hope nobody here is falling for that BS or anything else he says in this clip. Except maybe the criticisms of the warmongering Cheneys is like a blind squirrel finding an acorn - a truth that true is hard for anyone to get wrong.

I would like to add that the dream of national subsidized daycare with national regulations on training and standards of daycare workers and settings is not at all a bad thing. We could do our society a favor in multiple ways by investing in such a program that could get more talented people into the workforce and also train other people in the best practices model of early childhood education so our children could be getting positive influences in early life even if they're not on offer at home. That would go a long way toward alleviating disparity in early childhood learning and social development that would otherwise disadvantage a child for life.

I guess my education was very neglected. I thought the USA was a functioning democracy long before everyone had access to running water.

I must also be having senior moment memory problems. I live in an area where political ads show up on major tv network programing for Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. I remember way back in the Obama/Biden first election (and perhaps before) that stopping jobs shipped overseas, and making actual products in factories here. were issues supported by Democrats running for office in both national and state campaigns. And this Vance guy thinks this is a new idea he just heard from Trump?

Everybody pretends child-care for young kids, toddlers, preschool. infants is a task very important for all of society. Yet nobody recommends it as a good life-time career to pursue. Rather, at least in the traditional South, it is one of those low pay 'black jobs.' for the weaker gender.

snailgate

Who are all these people who are shipping jobs overseas? Is it the American worker who just wants a job with reasonable stability and a halfway decent wage, so that s/he can afford daycare and a house and to put away a little money for college and maybe a six-year-old car? Or is the corporate CEO who earns several million a year and calls his membership at the Mar-a-Lago Club a business expense?

I'm willing to give hints if anyone needs them.

That is the puzzle isn't it. The most ardent supporters of Trump are those who are hurt the worst by his policies. I frequent a forum similar to this for fans of a particular old brand rifle. That brand went broke, was bought by Remington who went broke, and is now made by Ruger.

The typical poster is also a strong Trump supporter. They use the term 'communist' more freely than Liberty does here. They deeply resent Walz exaggerating his military career (he properly wore an E9 rank badge, but never fully qualified for the promotion. He wore a ball-style cap with a Special Forces emblem on it even though he never was in such a unit. In fact all his service was in the National Guard. He submitted his retirement papers as soon as he found out his unit was about to be deployed in a combat zone. That is all called 'stolen valor' which the Supremes has said is all perfectly within the rights of free speech, even to wearing a Medal of Honor bought on e-bay.) He is also criticized for his management of general disturbances after a police killing, and for even being in the same room with someone who has said the words 'defund the police". That is after the GOAT golf player was beat up by police in a parking lot as he arrived for a tournament. Just recently a NFL player was beat up by the police as he arrived at the stadium for a game. That is the culture of the police in many places and the Trumpers think that is ok. Rich guys, specially blacks, should be beaten.

By the way de-fund the police has been very successful in Denver in responding to 911 'he is crazy' calls.

I have no Idea how to even talk about the weather with these people. That quickly becomes climate change denial.

snailgate

This is so confusing. As an example, the official designation 'Vietnam veteran' describes " . . . those who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time during the period of November 1, 1955 to May 15, 1975, regardless of duty location." In other words if you were in the military during that period, you are officially a Vietnam Veteran and the US military does not use the term Vietnam-era Veteran to differentiate between those who served over there and those doing KP at Fort Dix.

https://www.vietnamwar50th.com/about/cl ... 20location.

Please note the definition given in the post above for "Vietnam Veteran" IS NOT from a US Department of Defense document or organization. It has even less authority to speak for veterans than the VFW or The American Legion.

I served from 1 June 1960 active duty to 1 October 1963 and Army Reserve, with Honorable Discharge 1 June 1966. I would never call myself a Vietnam Veteran. Under certain circumstances, with individuals who know what the Honest John missile and the Fulda Gap were, I would call myself a veteran of the Cold War.

As far as KP at Ft Dix, that is immaterial. Every military person facing potential injury from enemy action in a combat zone is realistically supported by a multitude of uniformed people who never see that risk. Never the less, without them that person engaged with the enemy would be dead without ammunition, hungry, dirty and clothed in a rotting uniform. It has always been true that 'they also serve who only stand and wait' and never more than in the American military of today.

snailgate