*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #900 on: March 10, 2017, 03:01:37 PM »
My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

Not worse than Breitbart. No shocker, Breitbart are becoming the favored outlet of Trump. It is totally unethical. Its also terrible that Trump is limiting press to only the outlets whose bias agrees with his, don't you think?

Trumps relationship with the press is just a gong show of conflict of interest, cronyism and propaganda, but please keep bringing up the election choice that was made months ago instead of criticizing that.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Trump
« Reply #901 on: March 10, 2017, 04:22:32 PM »
My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.

Not worse than Breitbart. No shocker, Breitbart are becoming the favored outlet of Trump. It is totally unethical. Its also terrible that Trump is limiting press to only the outlets whose bias agrees with his, don't you think?

Trumps relationship with the press is just a gong show of conflict of interest, cronyism and propaganda, but please keep bringing up the election choice that was made months ago instead of criticizing that.

Freedom of press doesn't mean he gets to let hostile reporters into his press conference. It means he can't jail or legally punish them. I already mentioned earlier that he has a rock solid case for slander and defamation of character when they "reported" on that fake Buzzfeed dossier, among many other unproven assertions about the man. The only goal of liberally biased media outlets is to buffoon Trump and Republicans in general so that the Dems have any chance at winning anything in 2018.

It's only your opinion that CNN isn't as bad as Breitbart.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #902 on: March 10, 2017, 05:21:03 PM »
Few points of order. I never once said what Trump was doing was illegal, or unconstitutional, that was your own (mis)interpretation. Second, it seems like you don't really understand what libel entails: it must be an eminent falsehood that has caused damage to Trump. CNN never said what they were reporting was true, and it hasn't appeared to have cost him anything. Finally a quick perusal of Breitbart's headlines displays the kind of editorializing that most detest in CNN. Sorry you can't see that. Now please go back to believing that Trump is the most ethical, hard-working and least corrupt politician we have ever had.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Trump
« Reply #903 on: March 10, 2017, 05:35:28 PM »
Few points of order. I never once said what Trump was doing was illegal, or unconstitutional, that was your own (mis)interpretation. Second, it seems like you don't really understand what libel entails: it must be an eminent falsehood that has caused damage to Trump. CNN never said what they were reporting was true, and it hasn't appeared to have cost him anything. Finally a quick perusal of Breitbart's headlines displays the kind of editorializing that most detest in CNN.
Interestingly enough I never made any such interpretation.

Take this whole Russia "story," it should be DOA considering that we now know the CIA has the capacity to disguise their hacks as looking like they came from anybody, or any nation. To make matters worse THEY LOST COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT ENTIRE HACKING ARSENAL. Literally anyone could have done it and made it look like anyone. This continuous headline and accusation of ACTUAL TREASON by the MSM has and WILL cost Trump support, it WILL damage his reputation, and it will continue to be believed by those who want so badly to believe it. There is absolutely no proof besides "the intelligence" community, which if anyone has a clue would know that they are pathological liars and experts in misinformation.

Sorry you can't see that. Now please go back to believing that Trump is the most ethical, hard-working and least corrupt politician we have ever had.

Wow... start off by talking about how I misrepresented your stance, then you have the nerve to thrust this garbage on me. I am truly sorry that you can't see your own hypocrisy.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #904 on: March 10, 2017, 05:42:30 PM »
Weird that you would introduce the constitutional protection to the conversation then.  If you weren't misinterpreting, what was your actual point?

Your analysis of the whole Russia "story" [sic] is totally illogical. Just because one has the capacity to do something doesn't mean they have. Your theory could be put forward as a competing hypothesis and the evidence can be considered as such. But there is no way the story should be "DOA" based on this.

In all of our talk of being open-minded or whatever, you only dig got heels in when Trump is criticized. I have applauded Trump for what I think he should be applauded for, and criticized the parts that suck. I wish you could do the same.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Trump
« Reply #905 on: March 10, 2017, 05:54:47 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased. Some people still have some insane notion that infotainment companies like CNN and Fox are beholden to any kind of ethical code. I literally have people on my feed everyday who actually think the CNN and Wapo take on topics is the fair balanced view.

My thing is this, since our president already called them out many times, and banned them from the press conferences, why would they have any reason to play nice? To think, if they were fair or balanced before that (they weren't) how much worse they are after all that.
You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.


Take this whole Russia "story," it should be DOA considering that we now know the CIA has the capacity to disguise their hacks as looking like they came from anybody, or any nation. To make matters worse THEY LOST COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT ENTIRE HACKING ARSENAL. Literally anyone could have done it and made it look like anyone. This continuous headline and accusation of ACTUAL TREASON by the MSM has and WILL cost Trump support, it WILL damage his reputation, and it will continue to be believed by those who want so badly to believe it. There is absolutely no proof besides "the intelligence" community, which if anyone has a clue would know that they are pathological liars and experts in misinformation.
Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...

But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?  What about that comment of the "so called judge"?  That's slander right there. And from the president so it's gonna be so damning that I would NOT be surprised if that judge got death threats.

So if Trump wants to sue, that's fine.  The court will be happy to pull up all the dirt and on both sides and shine it into the light for all to see.  They can then counter sue for Slander from the president.

Re: Trump
« Reply #906 on: March 10, 2017, 06:39:42 PM »
You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.
Please give up on this trope already, it's so god damn tired. There is a difference in reporting things that "someone doesn't like" and outright adherence to a negative agenda designed to destroy that someone.

Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...
No. They reportedly aren't going to release any of the tools... but I'm sure people in the hacking community already have their hands on them long before Wikileaks became their steward.

But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

Reporting unsubstantiated reports, or misrepresenting facts, just because they fit your agenda violates the code of ethics for Journalism. Luckily there are no journalists at cable news networks so they aren't really beholden to that.

And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?

Most people agreed with his assessments of the Nasty Woman Crooked Hillary, if you could recall November 8th. I'm curious, can you show me a couple instances where Trump attacked someone unprovoked?

Re: Trump
« Reply #907 on: March 10, 2017, 07:09:42 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

Re: Trump
« Reply #908 on: March 10, 2017, 07:27:57 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else. You would think other infotainment companies would be interest in exposing CNN, but most of the industry is controlled by 6 corporations that really don't have any interest in injuring their own credibility.

I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Re: Trump
« Reply #909 on: March 10, 2017, 07:34:38 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote
I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

Re: Trump
« Reply #910 on: March 10, 2017, 08:12:23 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote
I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

No, but the disparity is indicative and a reflection of the broader agenda aka better brainwashing of the left. The community is actually surprisingly tolerant and grounded, compared to the hornet's nest that is many of the anti-trump communities. You can look at the instances of violence that have plagued the protests lately to see who has the advantage when it comes to being more hateful and bigoted.

My question to you is this: Why do you think liberally biased media has any inclination to show Trump in a positive light? There are many things they could report on, that if Obama did they would fawn over for weeks. They operate as little more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party, much like Fox is for the Right, but for some reason the similarities are completely lost on people.

As far as I can tell there is an absolute war on our elected leader from the media and the Deep State. And with outlets like the Washington Post, being directly influenced by the CIA in the form of a $700 million contract, it isn't really a stretch of the imagination to see why they have a vested interest in reporting things negatively or not reporting on things that could be considered a positive.

Re: Trump
« Reply #911 on: March 10, 2017, 08:43:56 PM »

Re: Trump
« Reply #912 on: March 10, 2017, 09:02:55 PM »
You do realize that when trump says "Mainstream Media is the enemy" he excludes Fox News from that, yes?  Because fox fails to report bad things.  They talk nicely to him.
Please give up on this trope already, it's so god damn tired. There is a difference in reporting things that "someone doesn't like" and outright adherence to a negative agenda designed to destroy that someone.
There is, yet neither you nor Donald Trump seem to be able to tell the difference.


Quote
Are you saying that wikileaks has given the CIA's entire source code of all their hacking programs to everyone in the world?  Oh dear...
No. They reportedly aren't going to release any of the tools... but I'm sure people in the hacking community already have their hands on them long before Wikileaks became their steward.
So your entire assessment of "it should be DOA" is based on what you think the people in the hacking community already have?  Does that make sense to you?  Should CNN and Fox write a report on how "Hackers probably have all the stuff wiki leaks just released so we can't be sure of any cyber attack anymore."?

Let me make something clear, the hacking community doesn't have what the CIA has, they have their own tools.  But if you think the intelligence community doesn't this, that they don't find other evidence, then all you're doing is fitting speculation to your narrative.


Quote
But seriously, you forget one very important thing: Slander/Libel must be intentional falsehoods.  Reporting exactly what Trump says isn't Slander, no matter how badly it damages his reputation.  Reporting current intelligence reports, however damning they may be (and some are from Trump's administration ) is also not slander.

Reporting unsubstantiated reports, or misrepresenting facts, just because they fit your agenda violates the code of ethics for Journalism. Luckily there are no journalists at cable news networks so they aren't really beholden to that.
You'll have to go ahead and prove that.  So far that list you gave us was all you've provided and we've more or less dis-proven or cast doubt on their validity.
Got anything else?

Quote
And what about Trump constantly calling the media and other people terrible names?

Most people agreed with his assessments of the Nasty Woman Crooked Hillary, if you could recall November 8th. I'm curious, can you show me a couple instances where Trump attacked someone unprovoked?
...
I DO recall November 8th.
I recall 3 million people MORE voted for Hillary than Trump.  So... you're lying.  This statement right here is exactly what you just spent the entire post ranting that news media does then you do it yourself.  Trump has done it too.  He spouts lies just to satisfy his agenda yet somehow you're ok with that.

And sure:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

There ya go.  A giant running list.  Some arguably attacked him first though most either didn't do anything or simply criticized his policies/language.  But you'd probably consider that an attack.  I mean, when the cast of Hamlet spoke to the VP elect at the END of the show with a well spoken plea and not an attack, Donald Trump (not Pence, Trump) attacked them.  But again, in your mind, anyone who criticizes him is attacking him.  It doesn't matter if they're attacking his words, his policy, or his actions: you consider it a personal attack and Donald in turn does too.

Re: Trump
« Reply #913 on: March 10, 2017, 09:13:46 PM »
Look, I think I'm right, you think you're right, no amount of debate is going to change that.

The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess. None of us know the real behind the scenes reasons for a lot of what's happening right now. It's not easy to follow for outsiders.

Washington Post has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA. They just hired Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta on the payroll. Do you think they could possibly be objective when it comes to matters regarding the intelligence community and matters that involve politics? Honest question.

CNN DID do their part in keeping Sanders from getting the nomination. Wikileaks confirms it. Do your own research. I don't have to prove anything to you that should be as obvious as the sky being blue, or the Earth being flat.

Re: Trump
« Reply #914 on: March 10, 2017, 11:01:50 PM »
Look, I think I'm right, you think you're right, no amount of debate is going to change that.
Correct.  The problem is, your thinking has no evidence to back it up.

Quote
The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess. None of us know the real behind the scenes reasons for a lot of what's happening right now. It's not easy to follow for outsiders.
Let me paraphrase this: The whole Russia stole the election is obviously fake because the CIA is going against the president even though the president controls the head of the CIA which means the CIA is both rogue and incompetent but I can't offer proof because no one really knows what's going on except the people who know.
It's just contradictory.


Quote
Washington Post has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA.
Again, another lie.  A giant, bold faced lie.  The Washington Post does NOT have a contract with the CIA, Amazon does.  To build a server and database system for storing information.  Which is something Amazon does alot of and does very well.
Jeff Bezo currently is CEO and majority shareholder of Amazon as well as the owner of Nash Holdings LLC, which owns the Washington Post. But hey, that's enough evidence for you, right?  All you need for proof of misdeeds is that the CEO of one company happens to be the owner of another company who owns a news company.  Well, let's play that game then, shall we?

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and New Corp, which owns the NY Post and the Wallstreet Journal.
Oh and he backs trump now.
Oh and Ivaka Trump was a board trustee overseeing Rupert's daughter's $300 trust fund.
http://fortune.com/2017/02/08/ivanka-trump-trustee-murdoch-daughters/

But that's not a conspiracy is it? 

Quote
They just hired Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta on the payroll. Do you think they could possibly be objective when it comes to matters regarding the intelligence community and matters that involve politics? Honest question.
Oh?  Care to post a link?  I can't seem to find any info on that.
As for the question: Anyone can be honest, dishonest, misleading, or just wrong.  You've been all four in your last post.  So yes, I do.  I also think they can be misleading, dishonest, biased, and wrong.

Quote
CNN DID do their part in keeping Sanders from getting the nomination. Wikileaks confirms it. Do your own research. I don't have to prove anything to you that should be as obvious as the sky being blue, or the Earth being flat.
Ah, ok, so one person is now CNN (one political analyst).  Gotcha.  Sure, not impossible that the owner of CNN (or an editor) helped Clinton out, you really think Fox News didn't do their part?  The only reason we don't have that evidence is because no one hacked the Republican system successfully.

Of course the boss of CNN, John K. Martin (he is CEO of Turner Broadcasting) loves Trump.  Trump made CNN $1 Billion in profits last year and expected more.

Re: Trump
« Reply #915 on: March 10, 2017, 11:21:07 PM »
What I said is that the "intelligence community" can not be trusted. The whole Russian house of cards is built on unnamed and anonymous unverified sources within said community. We discover one of the biggest fish in the "community" has access to hackers that can execute a cyber attack and make it look like it was done from any particular region, country, or government. They have lied to us before, Clapper, in particular, about what they do. I see no reason to trust them, if you do, then I'd love to hear the evidence to back up that thinking.

As far as your degrees of separation when it comes to Bezos it changes nothing. And as far as your Murdoch example you've done nothing but further demonstrate that the "news" agencies are compromised.

John Podesta and Washington Post

I've said several times in this thread that CNN and Fox are two sides of the same coin. You understand that one is bad but can't seem to wrap your head around the other could possibly be, despite tons of evidence.

Does alleged Russian involvement overshadow what the leaks revealed? Apparently our OWN government spied and wiretapped Trump and his associates, not a foreign one, and haven't found anything anywhere near the league of rigging the republican primary.

Re: Trump
« Reply #916 on: March 10, 2017, 11:49:52 PM »
The problem isn't with watching only one or two networks, it's watching them and not understanding that they are biased.

...says the person who sources their information from /r/The_Donald without double checking its veracity. lol.

I couldn't find a comprehensive list like that anywhere else.

Probably because the list was mostly false and/or misleading, as others have painstakingly pointed out.

Quote
I do know that The_Donald is a community made up entirely of Trump supporters, unfortunately, it is only one compared to hundreds dedicated to "bringing Trump down" lol

Does that make them more trustworthy?

No, but the disparity is indicative and a reflection of the broader agenda aka better brainwashing of the left.

I have this theory that banjos are sentient and planning to take over the world. Not many people agree with me, but that just proves that the banjo opposition is better at brainwashing!!!

*facepalm*

Quote
The [/r/The_Donald] community is actually surprisingly tolerant and grounded...

*double facepalm*

Quote
You can look at the instances of violence that have plagued the protests lately to see who has the advantage when it comes to being more hateful and bigoted.

Neither side likes the anarchists.

Quote
My question to you is this: Why do you think liberally biased media has any inclination to show Trump in a positive light?

Why do you think conservatively biased Trump has any inclination to show the liberally biased media in a positive light?

Re: Trump
« Reply #917 on: March 11, 2017, 05:28:30 AM »
What I said is that the "intelligence community" can not be trusted. The whole Russian house of cards is built on unnamed and anonymous unverified sources within said community. We discover one of the biggest fish in the "community" has access to hackers that can execute a cyber attack and make it look like it was done from any particular region, country, or government. They have lied to us before, Clapper, in particular, about what they do. I see no reason to trust them, if you do, then I'd love to hear the evidence to back up that thinking.
Why would that make you not trust them?  Trump's lied constantly yet you seem to trust him.

Quote
As far as your degrees of separation when it comes to Bezos it changes nothing. And as far as your Murdoch example you've done nothing but further demonstrate that the "news" agencies are compromised.
It changes everything.  Your entire comment was a giant bold faced lie!  You are a LIAR!  I'm not sure if you're just trolling or two stupid to see it.

Quote
John Podesta and Washington Post
Ah, that's my fault then.  I was looking at CNN.  I misread.
Still, a political opinion columnist isn't much.  How does that makes the WP corrupt?  Are you saying that a political columnist determines the integrity of an entire newspaper?

Quote
I've said several times in this thread that CNN and Fox are two sides of the same coin. You understand that one is bad but can't seem to wrap your head around the other could possibly be, despite tons of evidence.
Oh no, I know CNN is Bias.  I know Fox is Bias.  I wouldn't say either is Fake news though.  What I AM having difficulty wrapping my head around is how YOU can claim both are bad yet still think Donald Trump is not.  He gets his news from Fox and other right bias agencies.

Quote
Does alleged Russian involvement overshadow what the leaks revealed? Apparently our OWN government spied and wiretapped Trump and his associates, not a foreign one, and haven't found anything anywhere near the league of rigging the republican primary.
You're right, they did and they haven't (or they haven't been able to release it yet).  But that's kinda their job isn't it?  When a political campaign is in contact with a less than friendly government in an unexpected way, they should monitor them.  Wouldn't you think that's appropriate?  I mean, if Hillary Clinton's campaign staff was making deals with say... Iran, wouldn't you think the FBI and CIA would start monitoring her staff?  I know I would.

You seem to think that Trump should be immune from suspicion.  Why?  Because he won?  Because he's a Republican?  Because the media has reported on the shit he's said that's blatantly wrong, a lie, or unsubstantiated?

Re: Trump
« Reply #918 on: March 11, 2017, 05:29:33 AM »
...The Russian narrative is dead. The CIA is a rogue agency, and apparently incompetent. Obviously the intelligence community has a vested interest in opposing Trump. Over what, is anyone's guess...
Wouldn't the best way to oppose him be to never let him be elected?  Wouldn't the best way to never let him be elected be to bury any evidence of democratic wrongdoing so it could never see the light of day?  The CIA spoofing a hack to disguise it as Russian against the DNC to crucify Clinton seems to be the worst move anyone cloud possibly make if opposing Trump is the goal. 

Re: Trump
« Reply #919 on: March 11, 2017, 06:27:53 AM »
In other Trump News:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/10/519672879/white-house-cheers-numbers-on-jobs-border-crossings

Jobs continue to climb, continuing the economic roll Obama started.  Trump takes credit and claims they are now "Real" numbers.  I think that's my favorite bit how his administration went from "Those are totally fake numbers" to "Those are very real numbers" in quite literally 1 month despite the BLS not actually changing anything on how numbers are presented.

But he did slow border crossings by 40%.  Which isn't surprising.  I don't even wanna go to America and I'm American.