*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #560 on: February 08, 2017, 05:21:37 PM »
What Trump said was, "It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported, and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that." That doesn't read like a statement of opinion to me. And even if it was, it's still ridiculous, given the wall-to-wall coverage that some of those attacks got.

His negative approval ratings would seem to indicate his 4D triwizard tournament chess bonanza isn't working that well.

>relying on polls and surveys after this election
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #561 on: February 08, 2017, 05:45:16 PM »
We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Re: Trump
« Reply #562 on: February 08, 2017, 06:32:25 PM »
It cannot possibly be a lie. What Trump feels IS important when it comes to US Policy. Trump feels the vetting process needed to be reviewed by his team. Thus the 90 day travel ban.

It's not a lie that he feels the process is flawed, and warrants a deeper look. No amount of statistics you provide will convince me that the concern is A. unfounded B. deceitful or C. within his rights as the president.

How do you have any faith in poll results or approval ratings from the same sources that told you Hillary had a 98% chance of winning? Any faith in the media should at this point be grounds for involuntary commitment to your nearest mental hospital. The shit is literally a video version of US Weekly at this point.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #563 on: February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM »
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Re: Trump
« Reply #564 on: February 08, 2017, 06:47:36 PM »
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.


Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #565 on: February 08, 2017, 07:00:34 PM »
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Quote
Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.
The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.

So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5875
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #566 on: February 08, 2017, 07:16:47 PM »
The gap in his ethical criteria for the MM vs the Trump administration is staggering.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Trump
« Reply #567 on: February 08, 2017, 07:25:19 PM »
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you. Maybe geopolitics and not wanting to alienate himself from our actual allies?

The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.


So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 08:00:33 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #568 on: February 08, 2017, 07:57:16 PM »
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.
Then what does your critical thinking skills tell you about a man who doesn't consult the people who know this stuff, goes on his gut instincts in making policy, and doesn't even understand the process to which he's trying to change?  (He said if he gave a week's notice, bad guys would move up their time table which is false since the refugee process isn't something you can speed up like that from the refugee's end)

Quote
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden?
Umm, maybe geopolitics?
Really?  Trump the "I don't care about anyone's feelings" president worried about geopolitics?  He's trying to start a trade war with China, ignoring protocol with Taiwan, insulting Mexico, yelling at Australia, and has handed ISIS the best recruitment lines in decades.  MY critical thinking skills are telling me that geopolitics isn't on his list of worries when it came to the travel ban.

Quote
The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.
So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.
You don't need to be owned by a billionaire to have an agenda.  Also, Trump is a Billionaire with an agenda.  So... where does he fall in the realm of bias and fair reporting?

Quote
As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.
Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.
It's not a psychoanalysis.  I'm just stating a fact.

Re: Trump
« Reply #569 on: February 08, 2017, 08:24:18 PM »
Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.

You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.

Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.

To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #570 on: February 08, 2017, 08:36:44 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #571 on: February 08, 2017, 08:44:23 PM »
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat, which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonesty is obvious and alarming.

edit: spelling
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 08:57:02 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Re: Trump
« Reply #572 on: February 08, 2017, 08:50:01 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.

Holy conflict of interest Batman!

Re: Trump
« Reply #573 on: February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM »
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat, which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonestly is obvious and alarming.

Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

I assume the globalists reason to do what they do is so that they can continue to bomb and subvert sovereign nations with impunity while forcing every other nation to bear the burden of their actions.

We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 09:07:35 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Re: Trump
« Reply #574 on: February 08, 2017, 09:35:50 PM »
Where's the LIE?

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."

Quote
"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead.

Because it IS being reported.

Quote
The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

The only difference between those two statements is the tense. One is in the past tense, the other is in the present tense. Trump used the past tense. Spicer provided examples of past events. Those past events don't back up Trump's past tense statement. It is "purely figurative"? Are you now excusing Trump's lies by claiming that he speaks in metaphor like some sort of oracle?

Quote
How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

The media has it's fair share of bias and sensationalism. That doesn't make Trump's statement any less false.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5319
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #575 on: February 08, 2017, 09:36:47 PM »
Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.
O.o
I... I gave 5 examples.  5 examples of a world leader doing things that are counter productive to positive geopolitical relationships.  I'm not sure how you can call that my "feelings" when I listed evidence. 


Quote
You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.
I'm still waiting for a list of approved sources from you.

Quote
Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.
First, it's certainly possible.
Second, I haven't looked up any mental disorders.  You'll note that I haven't listed any either so I'm not sure why you think I am. 

Finally, who says I haven't?  I know my motives and intentions.  I'm politically left while being slightly liberal.  I'm emotionally biased against Trump but have warmed to some Republicans.  I'm emotionally biased again anyone who supports Trump and his policies as they are in direct contradiction to my own view as to what is or isn't morally right and I find the hypocrisy of their arguments to be extremely frustrating.

Quote
To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.
I'm not resistant to bias.  Never said I was.
What you ARE showing, however, is that you lack evidence to support your claims.  While I throw out facts, you simply say "I don't know" or point out how I'm being judgemental and egotistical.  I am, but that should be irrelevant.  You should be able to refute my claims but so far, you haven't.  You can't even support your own or answer simple questions such as what specific sources are valid, in your view. 

To be perfectly honest, I really do think that you don't have anything but faith.  Your views are true because they're your views.  Because the people around you tell you the same thing.  Because that's how you were raised growing up.  My opinion means shit to you and that's fine.  But my facts shouldn't, yet they do.  I can't change your mind because you don't even know why you believe the things you do, all you know is that they're yours.

Your world is just a shadow on a cave wall.  Mine, at least, allows me to turn my head a little.



Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.
You really wanna play the grammar game?  Alright.  "It's gotten to the point" is not interchangable with "It's getting to the point" because one is past tense, one is future tense.  Meaning "It's getting to the point where the levee is going to breach." vs "It's gotten to the point where the levee is going to breach."  In the first part, the levee will breach soon.  In the second one, it's already at that point and the levee has breached or is about to breach.  Even so, the tone of the words as well as his past statements strongly imply that that his meaning is that the media does NOT report on them.  Not that they are starting to not report on it.

Quote
How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.
Depends on which media.  Liberal media tends to show people suffering or being persecuted softer.  Conservative media tends to paint them in a harder image than actually exists.  This is due to their audience.  The conservative media audience doesn't like Islam or Refugees because they represent someone they should hate.  Someone different.  Someone who is "leeching" off their hard work.  They feel that those who have lost everything should figure out how to solve their own problems.  Ironically, they also are strongly religious.  Also, ironically, Islam is considered a very conservative religion.  Islamic people and conservatives actually would get along well and share many of the same values.  But they're TOO conservative to accept another point of view on their faith.



Quote
We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.
Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 
Err....
No.  No it isn't.
He made that comment in defense of Vladimir Putin.  Essentially saying that America has done some bad things, thus it's ok that Russia did bad things.

Had he made that point in relation to Refugees and Terrorists then it would be a favorable comparison.  He would be saying that even though there are some bad people in other countries that might try to get into the US to cause harm, we have people in the US who do the same so it's ok since we don't treat our own citizens any different due to the mass killings they do both home and abroad.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 10:34:25 PM by Lord Dave »

Re: Trump
« Reply #576 on: February 08, 2017, 09:52:02 PM »
It isn't covered nearly as thoroughly as every single fart that escapes Kim Kardashians bleached asshole gets covered.

Obviously Trump wants them covered more, because it proves his point. Obviously, other's don't want to cover it more, because it proves Donald Trump's point. Islam, for whatever reason, is responsible for more Terrorist attacks in modern history than any other ideology or religion.

You can keep saying I haven't given you evidence and facts Dave, but whenever I give you figures or numbers you just gloss over or cherry pick. It really isn't worth my time. You guys can continue to dissect every tweet for wrongdoing, or you can just leave it up to the "professional" spin doctors on 95% of cable news networks.

Re: Trump
« Reply #577 on: February 08, 2017, 09:53:20 PM »
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

Re: Trump
« Reply #578 on: February 08, 2017, 10:05:15 PM »
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech. And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS. He feels the stories aren't covered enough, or at all. I can't make the assumption that he is being purely deceitful, anymore than I can assume that perhaps he wasn't given all the information or "evidence" that some stories weren't covered. It is completely subjective whether or not something was "covered" thoroughly, and whether or not a quick mention on the 5 O' clock news counts as covered.

Clearly he would prefer if every story about terrorism would be covered the way it was when Bush was president, if only to justify keeping dangerous people out of our country, as opposed to justifying bring dangerous "freedom" into theirs.

Re: Trump
« Reply #579 on: February 08, 2017, 10:38:48 PM »
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech.

figurative
"1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word “head” has several figurative senses, as in “She's the head of the company.”.
Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic."

Quote
And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS.

...according to Spicer in damage control mode. Trump's original statement is still false.

Edit: Technically, "It's getting..." is in the present tense, not the future tense. But the implication is that we are presently approaching an event in the future, so my point stands.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 10:48:31 PM by TotesNotReptilian »