[honk]

Tom "supports" Trump only because most people here don't. Which doesn't mean that any points he raises are automatically invalid, of course, but there's no point in trying to sincerely connect with him or find any common ground.

[Lord Dave]

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).
They're doing what they've always done: Bias.  Remember when we used that word?  Trump turned "Bias" into "Fake" despite those two being very different concepts.


The pure and simple reason Trump won is he said what others thought.  He gave simple, clear solutions to complex problems while shifting blame to "Those other people".


"I can give you a high paying job and make you happy with no effort or cost on your part.  And all your problems are other people's fault."


This is his message.  And people love being told it.

[Boots]

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

[Lord Dave]

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Then it should be super easy for you to find 5 news stories on CNN that are lies or contain lies.
Note I say news stories, not opinion pieces.

[Boots]

His supporters know that the family separation policy  was in place long before Trump. They know that families were separated in the same way under Obama, there were just fewer of them. They know that the only change he made was to make a policy that all illegal border crossers would be charged  - as opposed to letting anyone accompanied by children off scot free.

...

Watch America vote in another empty celebrity next election because Americans and the media can't move past the tabloid crap and start focusing on real issues.

Having a hard time reconciling these.  Trumps supporters cant move past the tabloid crap and focus on real issues but at the same time are aware of the recent history of immigration policy?  Personally I doubt that Americans are very aware of most of their governments policies.  They believe crap like, "Obama issued the most executive orders of any president ever!" and never really investigate any further.  Thats why this immigration debate, instead of being a nuanced discussion devolves in to Trump being literally Hitler or the God-Emperor, depending on what side of the aisle he is on.

Tom is the perfect example.  He is reasonably smart, but is so unwilling to think outside his box, that he supports Trump no matter what.  As long as guys like him sound smart enough to be trusted, but are not mature enough to concede anything ever, American will continue to devolve.  Like Tyrian Lannister said, "We make peace with our enemies."  My friends down south need to do more of that.

I believe all Americans know better deep down but despite that, they are happy to accept and push any narrative that puts their side up and the opposing side down.

[Boots]

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Then it should be super easy for you to find 5 news stories on CNN that are lies or contain lies.
Note I say news stories, not opinion pieces.

Who said I was only talking about news stories and not opinion pieces? Opinion pieces are the perfect cover for the media to spread half truths and lies. Furthermore, there are other ways of pushing a false narrative without technically lying.

I'm not going to go find those news stories for you but I don't think it would be too difficult. I don't really care if you don't believe me.

Anyway, most of what I wrote about the false narrative above has been published in mainstream media. When Sanders answered a leading question by saying that it was biblical to uphold the law, the Washington Post ran the headline Sanders Says It's Biblical To Separate Families.

[Lord Dave]

Who said I was only talking about news stories and not opinion pieces? Opinion pieces are the perfect cover for the media to spread half truths and lies.

How diabolical.  Posting biased opinions inside a section called "Opinions." Only the most intelligent of people would ever suspect these "Opinions" aren't really facts.

Furthermore, there are other ways of pushing a false narrative without technically lying.

Also known as Bias.  Which I am fully, 100% agreeing with that it exists.

I'm not going to go find those news stories for you but I don't think it would be too difficult. I don't really care if you don't believe me.

It kinda is.  I mean, how do you know what's a fact and what's a lie if you don't research unbaiased sources?  And how would you even FIND these sources?  You can't trust the news agencies.  You can't trust the opinion pieces.  You can't trust facebook.  You can't trust the small "news" web sites.  Hell, I can't even trust a site of "All CNN Lies." because they're biased as hell.  I would have to cross reference every article with multiple sources from competing news agencies just to see what facts line up.  And that'll take a while.  It's best if YOU show ME what YOU found that's a lie.

Anyway, most of what I wrote about the false narrative above has been published in mainstream media. When Sanders answered a leading question by saying that it was biblical to uphold the law, the Washington Post ran the headline Sanders Says It's Biblical To Separate Families.

I was unable to find this headline online.

I found these:
Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families

Sessions invents a faith all his own
Leave the Bible out of it, child separation is not ‘Christian’
All in opinion sections.  So... try again, please.  I need at least one example from you.

[Boots]

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

[Tom Bishop]

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy and fake news: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

[Rama Set]

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Why don’t you ever admonish Trump for the multiple and gratuitous lies and fabrications he makes?

I can respond to they rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

That’s a terrible piece of editorializing.

[Lord Dave]

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Yes.  Bias.  Super biased, don't get me wrong.  But it's not fake.  It's not a lie.  She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families.  It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

Hypocrisy is not the issue here.  We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.

The first headlines about clinton's health.  It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories.  It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.

The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation.  Both times.  The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with.  They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges).  The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.

Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.

Laci Green is a youtuber.  Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context.  One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site.  Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media.  The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.

The other lacks context.  What section?  In what?  Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff.  So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection.  I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure.  I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.

Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.

Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.

It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.

I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.

[Roundy]

The news media makes mistakes from time to time. I think it's a stretch to say that they outright lie to push their agenda.

Trump on the other hand...

Look, he created all this fake news stuff because he doesn't like that he's being investigated and he doesn't like when people say negative things about him. Boots, I just don't understand you; you've so readily bought into the fake news narrative but claim you don't watch Fox News. Where are you getting it from then? At the moment only conservative news outlets like Fox are pushing that narrative, besides the president himself, and he is objectively the biggest liar, exaggerator, and hypocrite in American politics today.

You don't believe the narrative because the biggest liar in American politics today is pushing it, do you? Because that would be beyond gullible. And if not him or Fox then where is this coming from, specifically? I feel like if it was a conclusion you came to on your own it would have been a lot easier for you to answer Dave's challenge.

I am honestly curious about this. A man who has told thousands of lies (literally) since taking office complains that the media is lying about him because they're out to get him and you accept it as truth?

Why? On what basis?

[Boots]

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Yes.  Bias.  Super biased, don't get me wrong.  But it's not fake.  It's not a lie.  She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families.  It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

Hypocrisy is not the issue here.  We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.

The first headlines about clinton's health.  It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories.  It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.

The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation.  Both times.  The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with.  They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges).  The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.

Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.

Laci Green is a youtuber.  Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context.  One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site.  Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media.  The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.

The other lacks context.  What section?  In what?  Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff.  So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection.  I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure.  I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.

Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.

Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.

It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.

I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.

It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

[Boots]

The news media makes mistakes from time to time. I think it's a stretch to say that they outright lie to push their agenda.

Trump on the other hand...

Look, he created all this fake news stuff because he doesn't like that he's being investigated and he doesn't like when people say negative things about him. Boots, I just don't understand you; you've so readily bought into the fake news narrative but claim you don't watch Fox News. Where are you getting it from then? At the moment only conservative news outlets like Fox are pushing that narrative, besides the president himself, and he is objectively the biggest liar, exaggerator, and hypocrite in American politics today.

You don't believe the narrative because the biggest liar in American politics today is pushing it, do you? Because that would be beyond gullible. And if not him or Fox then where is this coming from, specifically? I feel like if it was a conclusion you came to on your own it would have been a lot easier for you to answer Dave's challenge.

I am honestly curious about this. A man who has told thousands of lies (literally) since taking office complains that the media is lying about him because they're out to get him and you accept it as truth?

Why? On what basis?

My issue with the media has nothing to do with Trump. I disliked them before he was on the scene, for reasons I have already made clear. I don't know if I agree that FOX is worse than the others but every bit as bad IMO.

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

[Boots]

I don't think this is the media but  :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but 

[Tom Bishop]

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

https://news.grabien.com/story-montage-media-turning-trump-voters-public-enemy-no-1

MSNBC's Donny Deutsch said Trump supporters are the "bad guy" in America and are akin to Nazis.

"If we are working towards November, we can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy," Deutsch said during a recent appearance on Morning Joe. "If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms."

He continued: "If you vote for Trump, then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis going, ‘You here, you here.’ I think we now have to flip it and it’s a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, ‘Well, he’s okay, but ...’ And I think that gymnastics and that jiu-jitsu has to happen.”

When news hit that some elderly Americans inadvertently shared a Facebook meme originally created in Russia, CNN tracked down one such senior citizen and harangued her on national TV. CNN likewise threatened to "dox" or publish the address, of another Trump supporter who had created a meme mocking CNN.

"All" Trump supporters are racist, CNN contributor Michaela Angela Davis, recently said: "Tens of millions of people voted for him after he showed his cards for years." When the anchor, John Berman, asked her to clarify if she's calling all Trump voters racist, she replied, "Yes, yes." Labeling almost half the country bigoted did not earn her a rebuke from the hosts or other panelist.

[Rama Set]

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

I don't think this is the media but  :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but 

Meh, way better than what happened in Charlottesville or UC Berkeley.  I will take a bunch of women waving their vaginas around any day.

[Tom Bishop]

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

If conservatives/the right was saying something rancid I would feel embarrassed to be a part of their movement.

Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Carlson generally just point out the hypocrisy and fake news, just as I have been doing. Where do you see them calling Hillary voters scum and communist killers or similar things?

[Tom Bishop]

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

Hillary Clinton says "guns don't keep us safe." Other leftist politicians say similar things and generally advocate to limit or abolish the second amendment. The liberal media parrots that.

Some articles from a quick google search on that phrase:

Guns Don't Make Us Safe: Debunking The Self-Defense Myth - Huffington Post
Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No - KQED News
Does owning a gun make you safer? - Los Angeles Times
Guns don't offer protection - The Guardian
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no - Harvard
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer - Stanford

A favorite image from the media hypocrisy link I posted:

[Rama Set]

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

You can create a narrative and not be lying, you do it all the time.

Hillary Clinton says "guns don't keep us safe." Other leftist politicians say similar things and generally advocate to limit or abolish the second amendment. The liberal media parrots that.

Some articles from a quick google search on that phrase:

Guns Don't Make Us Safe: Debunking The Self-Defense Myth - Huffington Post
Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No - KQED News
Does owning a gun make you safer? - Los Angeles Times
Guns don't offer protection - The Guardian
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no - Harvard
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer - Stanford

How is any of this lying or hypocritical   Having an agenda is not the same as being a hypocrite. Hilary probably is, but maybe not on guns, it depends on what form her argument about guns takes, but the media editorializing about he dangers of guns is not hypocritical or lying. It’s bias. Please try and understand the difference.