^^Oh I definitely agree, it certainly doesn't disprove anything. With me, it's a credibility issue. Why should I click the link the next time she has a tax return? I clicked it this time and got the same story I get with my taxes - they were paid.

And considering there was nothing nefarious in there, she actually shouldn't have reported on it. That was private information. Remember, there is no law requiring a President or a candidate to provide tax returns. You can be upset about that, which is fine, but it's not against the law. And if this was really that important, Congress would pass a law requiring representatives and candidates to do just that instead of debating whether we should tax the sun.

So, with respect to it not fitting a narrative and whether it's newsworthy, I have to give you some ground here. Newsworthy is a lot more relative than I wish it was. That is to say, just because something isn't important doesn't mean it isn't newsworthy by definition.

But in terms of fitting a narrative, the narrative should be driven by facts and supported by relevant context. For instance, if Trump had wanted to release this return he very well could have done so knowing it would have done nothing but show adherence to the law. He chose not to, as is his right.

Therefore, there is no reason for the media to take this information and publicize it unless there is an inherent public benefit to this.

Quote :

"makes me more suspicious of what he's trying to hide by covering with his trusty"

So I haven't seen any responses yet - is the White House actually calling this fake news?

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 10:21 AM. Reason : a]

3/15/2017 10:20:30 AM

^Yep

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/841966077005463553

3/15/2017 10:28:35 AM

^It's going to be a long four years...

3/15/2017 10:29:07 AM

Trump's not accusing the tax returns of being fake news - he's accusing the story of how they obtained the tax returns as fake. Seeing as how the White House published the tax returns 30 minutes before Maddow's story aired, it's pretty obvious Trump is the source of the leaks. It will be hilarious to find out MSNBC paid someone for these.

It's sad to watch MSNBC be so desperate for ratings that they would willingly let themselves get baited by the president into releasing tax returns that paint him very positively, after running a slander campaign against him over the last year for not releasing his taxes.

I'll have to read through the tax returns later tonight, as I'm surprised his tax rate was so high. He must make more through income and less through capital gains than I thought.

3/15/2017 11:16:54 AM

People on the last page were actually ticked off that a valid news story didn't project the kind of image they want for Trump. That's funny.

3/15/2017 11:30:01 AM

Quote :

"it's pretty obvious Trump is the source of the leaks"

I was wondering if he was or not. But I don't think them publishing prior to the story proves that. What is more likely is that a journalist called the WH and said "we're running a story on a 2005 tax return, do you want to comment?"

Then they scrambled, got a copy, and tried to preempt the story with their "version." Though in this case, the "version" appears to me to simply be the truth.

The story itself isn't fake, though. See that's where I go right back to being pissed off at him. I agree entirely it's not newsworthy. But they didn't lie about anything. The only people we know for certain that have lied about anything in the past 6 months are Trump and many of his cohorts.

Quote :

"People on the last page were actually ticked off that a valid news story didn't project the kind of image they want for Trump. That's funny."

That's another reason this was such a stupid "story" to publish. Infuriates me.


[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 11:31 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 11:32 AM. Reason : a]

3/15/2017 11:31:39 AM

That's my point exactly...you're mad because this doesn't make Trump look like a sleaze.

3/15/2017 11:36:20 AM

^You mean I'm mad?

I'm not sure what you mean. If it pointed out that he did anything illegal or there were dealings with Russia, then I'd absolutely call it newsworthy, considering it would indicate he has lied.

With respect to him looking "sleazy," if it made him look sleazy, I still wouldn't call it newsworthy (again, unless it indicated lies or law breaking).

So to sum up my views:
1) if the returns indicated illegality, newsworthy
2) if the returns indicated business dealings in Russia, newsworthy
3) if the returns indicated sleaziness, not newsworthy
4) if the returns indicated nothing, not newsworthy

Do you just mean that I'm complaining about a positive story about Trump? I see how you think that but I have been pretty consistent with respect to quality of news versus whether I like the subject of the news or not. It's no secret I think Trump is an awful President. That being said, if there was a story that said he did something objectively good, I'd have no problem with that, presuming the story was relevant.

If he helped a grandmother cross the street, not newsworthy. If he solved the health care problem in an objectively better manner, even if that meant modifying things that Democrats refuse to compromise on, I'd call that newsworthy and praise him for it.

Saying he paid his taxes in 2005 is not newsworthy. Him revealing his tax returns in the same manner as all recent presidential candidates simply to put to rest the question of dealings with Russia would absolutely be newsworthy, especially if it indicated he had zero dealings (as he claims) with Russia.

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM. Reason : a]

3/15/2017 11:50:19 AM

https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=https%3A%2F%2Famp.cnn.com%2Fcnn%2F2017%2F03%2F08%2Fpolitics%2Fmarines-raqqa-assault-syria%2Findex.html#pt0-596807

Boots are going back on the ground

3/15/2017 11:57:06 AM

I believe Trump to be awful as well, but I just don't need to be constantly reminded of it.

Is his 2005 tax return relevant? Not really. Is it relevant in comparison with his refusal to release his latest tax returns? Maybe. But it does make everyone involved look like they should eat crow.

3/15/2017 12:05:56 PM

Haha, I mean you are posting in a thread titled President Trump Credibility Watch. So if you're tired of being reminded of his lack of credibility you may want to change your viewing habits.

I'd argue it's only relevant to his later returns if the later returns show fundamentally important differences in terms of content.

Related: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/wiretapping-congressional-investigation/index.html

I guess all the evidence was destroyed when he turned on the microwave to make Spaghettios?

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 12:22 PM. Reason : a]

3/15/2017 12:13:39 PM

So Trump thought it was necessary to tell the entire world, twice, via tweet, that if Obama was President, the rapper Snoop Dogg would be jailed for shooting a toy gun with a bang-flag at a clown that looked like him, in a music video. And had to make sure the world knew that he thought Snoop Dogg's career was "failing".


[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/15/2017 1:05:41 PM

He's right.

The tea party members who lit an effigy of Obama on fire are still in jail!

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 1:36 PM. Reason : Ffs we seem to be back to literal vs serious again. He's the president not some Twitter clown ]

3/15/2017 1:33:16 PM

Really? Well, that's just ridiculous.

But still ridiculous that he felt the need to tweet about it to the world. And make sure he called the rapper a failure.

3/15/2017 1:36:07 PM

Of course they aren't and they never were. Just like Palin was free to put a bullseye over Gabby Giffords face on FB.

Once again, the orange guy doesn't have a clue how the first amendment works.

3/15/2017 1:38:22 PM

(oops, sorry, missed the sarcasm)

3/15/2017 1:51:01 PM

Quote :

"Conservative news site sole media outlet on Tillerson Asia trip"

Quote :

"U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is traveling to Asia this week accompanied by only one reporter, a White House correspondent from the Independent Journal Review (IJR), a digital news outlet founded in 2012 by former Republican political operatives. The IJR said in a statement late Tuesday the State Department last week offered one of its reporters, Erin McPike, a place aboard the Secretary's aircraft on his trip this week to Asia. State Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on why IJR and McPike were chosen to travel with Tillerson. The State Department had previously told reporters covering Tillerson’s trip to South Korea, Japan, and China that he would not be taking reporters on his plane and that they would have to fly commercially, breaking with decades of precedent stretching back to Henry Kissinger. Major news organizations complained, among them the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post and Reuters. McPike is a White House correspondent for IJR, and previously reported for CNN, Real Clear Politics, NBC News, and National Journal, according to a statement on IJR’s website when she joined the site in February. She also briefly covered the 2016 election campaign for Reuters. "We don't take this opportunity lightly and recognize the controversy surrounding press access for the trip," Alex Skatell, IJR's founder and chief executive, said in a statement on Tuesday. "Last week, the State Department officially offered McPike an opportunity to cover the secretary's upcoming trip to Asia. An official explained that the delegation would be flying on a smaller plane than normal and that press access would be limited. After editorial consultation, McPike accepted the seat." Thus far, McPike has not filed any "pool reports" that reporters traveling with a Secretary of State customarily file, to inform colleagues not with the secretary of statements or actions by the top U.S. Diplomat. The State Department Correspondents Association, which represents reporters who cover U.S. diplomacy, said in a statement that it was "disappointed" Tillerson chose to travel to Asia without a full contingent of media "or even a pool reporter". "After saying it was unable to accommodate press on the Secretary's plane to Asia due to space and budget constraints, the State Department offered a unilateral seat to one reporter," the statement said. "Several of our members have traveled commercially to meet Secretary Tillerson on the ground in Asia. We expect that the diplomatic press corps will be afforded access to Secretary Tillerson equal to that given to the reporter on the plane." A spokesman for IJR, Matt Manda, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether McPike would file pool reports to colleagues, or whether IJR had any comment on the SDCA’s statement. For decades, secretaries of state have nearly always invited media to travel with them. In rare cases, particularly late in a secretary's tenure, some outlets have declined the invitations, such as for former Secretary John Kerry's December 2016 trip to Saudi Arabia. Republican secretaries of state Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker, and Condoleezza Rice routinely took 10 or more journalists on their overseas trips, even to conflict zones such as Lebanon and Central America. Up through Tuesday, just hours before Tillerson was scheduled to leave, the State Department declined to confirm whether there would be any reporters on Tillerson’s plane. "We've been very clear, frankly, that this is a smaller footprint all around, and this is the Secretary's decision, to travel with a smaller footprint," Toner said. "To some degree, it's a cost-saving measure." News organizations that travel with U.S. officials pay the U.S. government for the cost of their air travel. Before founding IJR, Skatell worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and for the Republican Governors Association, according to his LinkedIn profile. Another founder, Phil Musser, previously served as executive director of the Republican Governors Association and served in the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the George W. Bush administration. The conservative-leaning outlet, which bills itself as a digitally savvy news source for millennials, has 35 million monthly readers and more than 50 reporters, according to its website. Skatell told the New York Times in 2014 that he wanted to start a site after observing a gap in reaching "a more mainstream center-right audience." IJR reports on a wide range of political and national news, specializing in short items with punchy headlines. Trending Tuesday headlines on the site included "Planned Parenthood Executive Makes Bigtime Humiliating Mistake of Going on Tucker Carlson's Show" and "Dem. Congressman Warned Not Once, Not Twice, But Three Times — Then Officers Put Him in Handcuffs.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tillerson-asia-media-idUSKBN16M0C4

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 1:53 PM. Reason : cost saving lolol]

3/15/2017 1:53:04 PM

^I thought the press already paid for their own travel, even if it was a % based on whatever space/costs they represented when on AF1 or something.

Putin 101 - Get rid of the media.

3/15/2017 2:18:14 PM

Yeah, apparently they pay for seats on the plane, ground transportation provided by the State Dept etc.

But yah, it's cost savings when you deny access to everyone except a single reporter from an website with titles like "Planned Parenthood Executive Makes Bigtime Humiliating Mistake of Going on Tucker Carlson's Show" and "Dem. Congressman Warned Not Once, Not Twice, But Three Times — Then Officers Put Him in Handcuffs.""

3/15/2017 2:44:58 PM

Gotta save for those golf trips somewhere!

3/15/2017 2:50:22 PM

IBTso-called-state-of-Hawaii

3/15/2017 7:25:46 PM

Quote :

"i will be releasing the results of my colonoscopy at 9pm/ET. seriously "

3/15/2017 7:27:53 PM

Lock Her Up chant at Trump's self-fellating ego stroke.

For some reason.

3/15/2017 8:29:10 PM

^ he also said he regrets not banning muslims outright the first time (paraphrasing).

Can't see how the Muslim ban stands after this.

Also seemed like a much smaller crowd than he was used to inside but haven't seen a full confirmation of this.

3/15/2017 11:29:29 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1

Quote :

"Obama Boots Reporters From Conservative Papers"

But muh narrative!

It must be tough for you leftists, first the anti-Semitism narrative backfires in your face, then the "no taxes payed" narrative gets debunked, you are really desperate now.

[Edited on March 15, 2017 at 11:33 PM. Reason : Do you hacks get tired of being wrong or is it just in your nature?]

3/15/2017 11:32:26 PM

New York post you say.....

3/16/2017 6:48:43 AM

^^ it's been talked about a lot on here actually. Obama also had the DoJ get emails and phone calls from a Fox News reporter. It was a gross misuse of power.

3/16/2017 6:55:16 AM

TIL that booting 3 reporters is the equivalent of only allowing one conservative rag reporter.

3/16/2017 7:13:55 AM

So Trump released his budget, and as expected he's slashing the EPA's budget, as well as HUD's, but there are some agencies that area being defunded at 100%. One of those little known agencies is the Institute for Museum and Library Services. I was curious when I saw this because I love to visit museums, and NC (especially Raleigh) have a couple of really good ones. The IMLS gives out grants to various libraries and museums across the country allowing them to upgrade their exhibits, expand locations, do research, etc.

If anybody is interested, their latest annual report available (2014) is posted on their website. It looks like the Triangle was awarded grant money from them. I couldn't find in the report what specifically the grant funded, but I would suspect it was for improvements at the Natural Science museum, seeing as how they placed it on the front cover of their report.

Just a small little known agency that probably does more than you realize, gone.

Of course PBS is also defunded. Me personally, I don't care about NPR, but I know a lot of people do. It's defunded.

3/16/2017 9:04:46 AM

While I think it's ridiculous to defund those things, NPR and PBS should be fine. NPR gets less than 1% of its revenue from the CPB and PBS is less than 7%. The four organizations he would defund are less than 0.02% of the federal budget. Good to see Trump is going after the things that matter...

3/16/2017 9:22:59 AM

Massive defense spending and a border wall won't pay for itself folks.

3/16/2017 9:25:48 AM

It's like trump is daring congress to allocate more to mandatory spending.

3/16/2017 9:39:38 AM

Wow that last post was full of grammatical errors.

Oh well.

The State Department is also being cut.

3/16/2017 9:53:38 AM

this budget is a conservatives wet dream that I doubt Trump read a word of before giving it the green light

they're cutting Meals On Wheels, for fucks sake

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 9:56 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2017 9:55:02 AM

Zombie-eyed Granny starvers

3/16/2017 10:05:24 AM

^^ that is actually one of the few things Trump has laid out that traditional conservatives would support. Charity should come from private citizens not the government.

Not saying I agree but that is pretty traditional con orthodoxy which means I agree, he didn't even look at it.

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 10:07 AM. Reason : X]

3/16/2017 10:07:18 AM

Increasing spending on the VA by ~10%, that's a pretty good look and probably needed.

3/16/2017 10:20:26 AM

Cutting funding for the TSA seems like a terrible political move. Airport lines have been getting worse and worse over the past couple years with the number one culprit being under funding. The average person doesn't necessarilly feel a lot of these cuts, but they certainly feel what it's like to stand on the security line. I guess the obvious answer is a lot of Trump voters don't go to the airport, but still

3/16/2017 10:34:42 AM

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 10:48 AM. Reason : nm already covered]

3/16/2017 10:47:49 AM

Off subject but i see Obama has made his bracket picks again this year. Who did Trump pick? I really need to know who his final four is

3/16/2017 10:50:25 AM

This budget does absolutely nothing to address fiscal responsibility.

You don't cut the smallest parts of the budget to try and fix that. It's so unacademic it's infuriating.

I have zero problem with the defense increase. I will say, though, that the DOD did their own internal report which got leaked earlier this year and they were wasting like 150 billion dollars a year. Internal. Waste. FIX that and you don't need the 54 BN increase, you can just use the 150 BN savings and keep it there, don't even reduce their budget.

Only four ways to handle fiscal responsibility:
1) Address entitlement reform
2) Address defense reform
3) Address corruption
4) Fix our bullshit tax system

Focusing on anything else, even a dumb department like the Department of Education (which apparently we were fine with until the 80s) will do absolutely nothing and in many cases, will detract from positive impacts to society and as an extension, the economy (PBS for instance).

3/16/2017 10:54:51 AM

Quote :

"I have zero problem with the defense increase. I will say, though, that the DOD did their own internal report which got leaked earlier this year and they were wasting like 150 billion dollars a year. Internal. Waste. FIX that and you don't need the 54 BN increase, you can just use the 150 BN savings and keep it there, don't even reduce their budget."

you kind of argued against your original stance here

there is absolutely no need to currently increase defense spending

3/16/2017 11:08:53 AM

^Sorry, I just meant in principle, increasing defense spending by 54 BN would not bother me just given everything going on in the world. But, I would absolutely rather they take the 150 BN in waste and just fix that and NOT increase the overall budget by another 54 BN.

Since the waste isn't fixed yet, there actually is a need to increase it, simply from a practicality standpoint. But I absolutely agree - you fix the complete fuckery of waste inside that system and you eliminate that need.

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 11:15 AM. Reason : a]

3/16/2017 11:14:36 AM

Quote :

"Since the waste isn't fixed yet, there actually is a need to increase it, simply from a practicality standpoint. "

care to expand on this?

3/16/2017 12:00:04 PM

Yep, it won't make you feel good, but it's just reality.

We have threats in the world that have got to be dealt with with respect to deterrence, weapons, research ,etc. Those threats are now/imminent/ongoing, etc.

Fixing the waste in the DOD should begin now but will likely take years (wouldn't surprise me if it took over a decade). So, if we need $54 billion more (minus whatever% of waste comes with that) to accomplish the above mission now, I'd argue practically speaking we have to.

Found the review, btw: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.d59f5db7c65e

Quote :

"The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post."

I could be entirely wrong on how long it takes to fix the waste and if so, then yea, I'd rather spend the next year focused on that rather than just upping the budget. But how long would it actually take to get all the people on board within the dept, all of Congress on board to press em and the American public to care enough to actually voice their opinions and vote accordingly if it doesn't happen?

That's really all I mean with respect to practicality.

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 1:04 PM. Reason : a]

3/16/2017 1:01:01 PM

Quote :

"So, if we need $54 billion more (minus whatever% of waste comes with that) to accomplish the above mission now"

Considering how much we already spend on defense, that's a pretty fucking big "if".

3/16/2017 1:05:19 PM

Is it silly to say though that there's a slight possibility that some of that "waste" went into some black ops programs that are off the books, or have I just been watching way too many movies?

3/16/2017 1:06:02 PM

^So they definitely used to route money for secret programs all over the place before, I wouldn't be surprised if somehow some of that got routed to "admin" expenses.

Book: Blind Man's Bluff

Talks about the US Sub program during the Cold War and if I remember correctly, there is a chapter about one program where the budget was routed through another program and the guy in charge of program two was not allowed to see anything related to it and because of that, had to answer to someone lower ranked who was directing the funds.

[Edited on March 16, 2017 at 1:08 PM. Reason : a ]

3/16/2017 1:07:16 PM

Quote :

"We have threats in the world that have got to be dealt with with respect to deterrence, weapons, research ,etc. Those threats are now/imminent/ongoing, etc."

how is that any different than any other year from the last 16?

would you prefer our defense spending be more efficient/smarter or to just keep throwing money into an already bloated department?

3/16/2017 1:12:39 PM

Making weapons smarter is an extremely expensive endeavor. And, some of these "smart" weapons might fall under those "admin" costs.

3/16/2017 1:15:29 PM