Discussion:
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
(too old to reply)
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-06 21:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)



David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-06 21:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.

He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.

He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.

Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.

You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?

It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.

So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.

Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
among Trump voters and Hillary voters in belief in a JFK conspiracy:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-07 13:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.

Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Off topic response:


If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
website:

http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf

Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
situation and has a child with Autism:

https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/

And:

http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/

It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-06-07 14:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.

But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
That's sort of like saying the favorite whine of the LNs is that
'they all lied'. But now applied to a fact checking organization. You
see, Carter Page was in the sights of the FBI as far back a 2013, when the
Dossier didn't even exist. They had followed his exploits in Russian and
elsewhere and he was a suspicious character to them. While there are
Republicans working with Devon Nunes that would like to spread the story
that the FISA warrant was initiated on the Dossier alone, it just wasn't
true. But I will be happy to read anything you put forward proving that
the FISA warrant was due mainly to the Dossier:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2

Remember, that Devon Nunes discredited himself with his memo to the
W.H. giving them info, when that was where he originally got it. There
was much political dirt around that secret memo he and the Republicans
sent out.

However, the Steele Dossier has not been disproved in any part, and
has been verified in some parts.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
I seriously doubt that the Clinton people knew where the info was
coming from. They wanted dirt and they subcontracted for it as do most
campaigns. The FusionGPS company went where they could get the info, and
that wasn't attached to the Clinton people. In the case of the Trump
people (including Manafort), they spoke directly with representatives of
the Russian and Saudi governments who said they would help elect Trump.
That attempt to get 'dirt' on Clinton was illegal and therefore is what
some call 'collusion', even if they didn't get what they went there for.
It's proven with emails and testimony. Manafort being there (Campaign
manager) means they can't plead ignorance of the laws.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.
But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
The Obama people didn't get caught working with the Russians to win
the election which is illegal. The time to nail him passed if he or his
people were guilty of a crime. But I think most people would think there
was a difference in Obama's people using Facebook to get elected, and the
Russians working through criminal methods to get Trump elected. Data was
stolen from 87 million people on Facebook, for the purpose of using the
info to target people with specific messages.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
Yep, I do indeed, but only the ones that have good evidence of the
conspiracy.

Chris/mainframtech
bigdog
2018-06-10 00:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
That's sort of like saying the favorite whine of the LNs is that
'they all lied'. But now applied to a fact checking organization. You
see, Carter Page was in the sights of the FBI as far back a 2013, when the
Dossier didn't even exist. They had followed his exploits in Russian and
elsewhere and he was a suspicious character to them. While there are
Republicans working with Devon Nunes that would like to spread the story
that the FISA warrant was initiated on the Dossier alone, it just wasn't
true. But I will be happy to read anything you put forward proving that
http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2
Remember, that Devon Nunes discredited himself with his memo to the
W.H. giving them info, when that was where he originally got it. There
was much political dirt around that secret memo he and the Republicans
sent out.
However, the Steele Dossier has not been disproved in any part, and
has been verified in some parts.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
I seriously doubt that the Clinton people knew where the info was
coming from.
I seriously doubt they cared.
Post by mainframetech
They wanted dirt and they subcontracted for it as do most campaigns.
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
The FusionGPS company went where they could get the info, and
that wasn't attached to the Clinton people.
That happened later.
Post by mainframetech
In the case of the Trump
people (including Manafort), they spoke directly with representatives of
the Russian and Saudi governments who said they would help elect Trump.
So you are saying The Trump campaign cheated better than the Hillary
campaign.
Post by mainframetech
That attempt to get 'dirt' on Clinton was illegal and therefore is what
some call 'collusion', even if they didn't get what they went there for.
Putting classified information on a private email server is illegal too
but who's counting?
Post by mainframetech
It's proven with emails and testimony. Manafort being there (Campaign
manager) means they can't plead ignorance of the laws.
What was Hillary's excuse?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.
But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
The Obama people didn't get caught
I guess that's the key.
Post by mainframetech
working with the Russians to win
the election which is illegal. The time to nail him passed if he or his
people were guilty of a crime.
Oh really? What's the statute of limitations?
Post by mainframetech
But I think most people would think there
was a difference in Obama's people using Facebook to get elected, and the
Russians working through criminal methods to get Trump elected. Data was
stolen from 87 million people on Facebook, for the purpose of using the
info to target people with specific messages.
Facebook granted Cambridge Analytica access to the data just as it had
granted access to Democrats in the past.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
Yep, I do indeed, but only the ones that have good evidence of the
conspiracy.
Which in your world means they are conspiracies you want to believe in.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-12 21:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.

There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.

In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.

10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator

1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.

When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.

Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
Wait for it, wait for it. July 4th.
Post by d***@gmail.com
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-13 14:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
What you are saying is completely unprincipled.

You never would make an argument like that if the "deep state" had
abused its power to try to destroy Barack Obama.

What you are condoning is a "soft coup." You seem to think it's OK
for government officials to conspire to overthrow the results of a
presidential election.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 03:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
What you are saying is completely unprincipled.
You never would make an argument like that if the "deep state" had
abused its power to try to destroy Barack Obama.
zi like your new rightwing conspiracy theory.
Tell us how the Deep State wanted to destroy Obama.
The least you could do is claim that the Deep State destroyed Hillary.
Post by John McAdams
What you are condoning is a "soft coup." You seem to think it's OK
for government officials to conspire to overthrow the results of a
presidential election.
For the last two years I have been arguing for the Soft Coup.
It's called the 25th Amendment. No bloodshed, no killing.
Just a simple vote to remove an insane President.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-13 14:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
Don't you understand that posting stuff like this puts you in the same
class as Tony March?

Bashing Trump may have a cathartic effect for you, but it just
reinforces the notion that Trump's enemies are deranged with hatred.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 03:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
Don't you understand that posting stuff like this puts you in the same
class as Tony March?
Bashing Trump may have a cathartic effect for you, but it just
reinforces the notion that Trump's enemies are deranged with hatred.
How do you know he isn't just one of my aliases?
Maybe my other alias is Tony March.
Instead of my real name Anthony Marsh.
You met me in person. Doubt if you stayed for my presentation, but you
saw that it was listed in the schedule as Anthony Marsh.
Were YOU listed in the schedule as Paul Nolan?

How many people are old enough to remember why you sign your name .John?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-06-13 14:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE 2000.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-14 02:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?

Isn't that conspiracy belief?

Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.

Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
BOZ
2018-06-15 21:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
EXCELLENT POINT STEVE.
BOZ
2018-06-15 21:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
THIS IS SREVE'S EXCELLENT POINT. Don't many - if not most - Democratic
members of Congress believe that STEVE THE USA HAS THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE SINCE 2000.

Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
bigdog
2018-06-16 21:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-18 21:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.

But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
bigdog
2018-06-19 21:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
This is what makes this kind of reporting all the more insidious. There
are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Trump for but when they are
constantly in attack mode, there is no reason to listen to ANYTHING they
say, and I don't. It's The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. If they are always
attacking Trump, why should I ever believe them.

Sadly, true journalism in this country is all but dead. A real journalist
deals in facts, not opinions. He tells you what he knows, not what he
thinks. Who is doing that? Not the networks. Not the cable channels. Not
the major newspapers. Not the internet news services. I've tuned them ALL
out. I want to be informed, not indoctrinated, but nobody seems to have
any interest in doing that any more.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-20 17:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Sadly, true journalism in this country is all but dead. A real journalist
deals in facts, not opinions. He tells you what he knows, not what he
thinks. Who is doing that? Not the networks. Not the cable channels. Not
the major newspapers.
I would disagree that the "major newspapers" are not doing the hard work
of journalism. In fact, most of the big stories (almost all of which turn
out to be true) come from newspapers and the stories are only discussed
and debated on the cable news networks. It's reporters, many of whom we
probably do not even know the name of, usually young, eager reporters -
who are digging and scratching and making phone calls and staying up late
at night and pursuing leads and trying to make contacts - who always seem
to break the big stories. It's seldom CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews who breaks any
big news. They simply report what others have found. And those "others"
are usually the newspapers.

Now, I realize the newspapers don't always get it 100% right. And here's
where John McAdams cites a link how the New York Times misreported this or
that. Oftentimes, when the paper gets a fact wrong, the correct it. That
never hardly ever happens on cable news.

The problem is not the news networks. The problem isn't any of the media
you name. The PROBLEM is that Americans are becoming less sophisticated
digesters of news. When I watch CNN, I know what I'm watching. When I
watch FoxNews, I know what I'm watching. When something sounds outrageous
to me, it's pretty easy to check. When one networks says it's "black" and
the other says it's "white" - with regards to hard facts - that's usually
pretty easy to resolve. Most people don't even try.

For instance, does the Inspector General's report really "exonerate" Trump
regarding Russian collusion, as Trump claimed? Did the IG Report really
determine that James Comey was a criminal, as Trump claimed? NO! That is a
completely inaccurate interpretation of the report. Was the report
critical of James Comey? Yes! Did the report find evidence of political
bias from a key FBI investigator? Yes! That's all fair game and those
things can be discussed and debated as to how those biases may have
manifested themselves - because, ultimately, you can't build a legal case
on bias - only facts.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-21 16:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Sadly, true journalism in this country is all but dead. A real journalist
deals in facts, not opinions. He tells you what he knows, not what he
thinks. Who is doing that? Not the networks. Not the cable channels. Not
the major newspapers.
I would disagree that the "major newspapers" are not doing the hard work
of journalism. In fact, most of the big stories (almost all of which turn
out to be true) come from newspapers and the stories are only discussed
and debated on the cable news networks. It's reporters, many of whom we
probably do not even know the name of, usually young, eager reporters -
who are digging and scratching and making phone calls and staying up late
at night and pursuing leads and trying to make contacts - who always seem
to break the big stories. It's seldom CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews who breaks any
big news. They simply report what others have found. And those "others"
are usually the newspapers.
Are you really going to tell me the NYT, the Boston Globe, and the
Washington Post aren't propaganda mills? That they haven't taken sides?
Most newspapers are in one camp or the other. When somebody has taken
sides, I can't trust what they report. Even if they are telling me the
truth, they are only telling me the part of the truth they want me to
know. They won't tell me the part that doesn't suit their agendas.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, I realize the newspapers don't always get it 100% right. And here's
where John McAdams cites a link how the New York Times misreported this or
that. Oftentimes, when the paper gets a fact wrong, the correct it. That
never hardly ever happens on cable news.
They lead with the fake news, they bury the corrections.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem is not the news networks. The problem isn't any of the media
you name. The PROBLEM is that Americans are becoming less sophisticated
digesters of news. When I watch CNN, I know what I'm watching. When I
watch FoxNews, I know what I'm watching. When something sounds outrageous
to me, it's pretty easy to check. When one networks says it's "black" and
the other says it's "white" - with regards to hard facts - that's usually
pretty easy to resolve. Most people don't even try.
For instance, does the Inspector General's report really "exonerate" Trump
regarding Russian collusion, as Trump claimed? Did the IG Report really
determine that James Comey was a criminal, as Trump claimed? NO! That is a
completely inaccurate interpretation of the report. Was the report
critical of James Comey? Yes! Did the report find evidence of political
bias from a key FBI investigator? Yes! That's all fair game and those
things can be discussed and debated as to how those biases may have
manifested themselves - because, ultimately, you can't build a legal case
on bias - only facts.
If you look at the way the Fox reported the IG's report and the way CNN
and MSNBC reported it, you wouldn't even know they were talking about the
same report. I don't trust any of them. They all put their own slant on
it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Sadly, true journalism in this country is all but dead. A real journalist
deals in facts, not opinions. He tells you what he knows, not what he
thinks. Who is doing that? Not the networks. Not the cable channels. Not
the major newspapers.
I would disagree that the "major newspapers" are not doing the hard work
of journalism. In fact, most of the big stories (almost all of which turn
out to be true) come from newspapers and the stories are only discussed
and debated on the cable news networks. It's reporters, many of whom we
probably do not even know the name of, usually young, eager reporters -
who are digging and scratching and making phone calls and staying up late
at night and pursuing leads and trying to make contacts - who always seem
to break the big stories. It's seldom CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews who breaks any
big news. They simply report what others have found. And those "others"
are usually the newspapers.
Are you really going to tell me the NYT, the Boston Globe, and the
Washington Post aren't propaganda mills? That they haven't taken sides?
Most newspapers are in one camp or the other. When somebody has taken
sides, I can't trust what they report. Even if they are telling me the
truth, they are only telling me the part of the truth they want me to
know. They won't tell me the part that doesn't suit their agendas.
How can you NOT take sides when you see Evil? Maybe the problem is that
no one was brave enough to take sides when they saw Hitler's rise to power.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Now, I realize the newspapers don't always get it 100% right. And here's
where John McAdams cites a link how the New York Times misreported this or
that. Oftentimes, when the paper gets a fact wrong, the correct it. That
never hardly ever happens on cable news.
Happens all the time on Rachel Maddow's show.
Post by bigdog
They lead with the fake news, they bury the corrections.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem is not the news networks. The problem isn't any of the media
you name. The PROBLEM is that Americans are becoming less sophisticated
digesters of news. When I watch CNN, I know what I'm watching. When I
OK, so Americans are illiterate. That's why we have to have TV. That's
why Trump gets all his information from Fox News. He is not smart enough
to know how to read. That's what his supporters like about him.
It makes them feel better.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
watch FoxNews, I know what I'm watching. When something sounds outrageous
to me, it's pretty easy to check. When one networks says it's "black" and
the other says it's "white" - with regards to hard facts - that's usually
pretty easy to resolve. Most people don't even try.
For instance, does the Inspector General's report really "exonerate" Trump
regarding Russian collusion, as Trump claimed? Did the IG Report really
determine that James Comey was a criminal, as Trump claimed? NO! That is a
completely inaccurate interpretation of the report. Was the report
critical of James Comey? Yes! Did the report find evidence of political
bias from a key FBI investigator? Yes! That's all fair game and those
things can be discussed and debated as to how those biases may have
manifested themselves - because, ultimately, you can't build a legal case
on bias - only facts.
If you look at the way the Fox reported the IG's report and the way CNN
and MSNBC reported it, you wouldn't even know they were talking about the
same report. I don't trust any of them. They all put their own slant on
it.
Sometimes the same report will have multiple parts and they cherry pick
which parts to mention.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-19 21:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?

Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]

Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."

And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government. That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?

If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.

The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.

So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit. Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-19 21:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.

How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?

htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html

In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.

These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.

And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-20 18:05:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I don't want to put words in his mouth - he's a terrific poster and a
gentleman - but he seems to have the view that it's impossible for the
media to be unfair to Trump. That Trump is so odious and dangerous that
whatever crtical coverage is done is fine. It's warranted and he deserves
it.

That seems to be the view of a lot of Trump critics. Viz., the media can't
be too critical of him; nothing is out of bounds or unacceptable.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I don't want to put words in his mouth - he's a terrific poster and a
gentleman - but he seems to have the view that it's impossible for the
media to be unfair to Trump. That Trump is so odious and dangerous that
whatever crtical coverage is done is fine. It's warranted and he deserves
it.
That seems to be the view of a lot of Trump critics. Viz., the media can't
be too critical of him; nothing is out of bounds or unacceptable.
So you think that a free press should never criticize the President?
Is that only when it's a Republican? You like then the conservative
press bashes Liberals. That's not hyocrisy, it's bias.
bigdog
2018-06-20 18:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+clinton+saying+make+american+great+again&view=detail&mid=0F268B01267D74E5E1C60F268B01267D74E5E1C6&FORM=VIRE

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-make-america-great-again_us_57d06ccfe4b0a48094a749fc
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-21 16:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
There's a huge difference between using the phrase and making it a MANTRA
of religious proportions, emblazoned on hundreds of thousands of ball
games and adopting primary the theme of a political campaign; although, at
Trump rallies, "Make America Great Again" came in second place to "Lock
her up!" and "Build that Wall!" - to which Trump would reflexively retort,
"And WHO'S going to pay for that wall? ... [chorus] "Mexico!" Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-22 21:47:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
There's a huge difference between using the phrase and making it a MANTRA
of religious proportions, emblazoned on hundreds of thousands of ball
games and adopting primary the theme of a political campaign; although, at
Trump rallies, "Make America Great Again" came in second place to "Lock
her up!" and "Build that Wall!" - to which Trump would reflexively retort,
"And WHO'S going to pay for that wall? ... [chorus] "Mexico!" Pfft!
I see no difference in the use of the phrase between Clinton and Trump.
How can it be OK for one to use it and then suggest it is subliminal
racism for the other to use it. That is hypocrisy of the highest order.
But of course the liberal media would never call Clinton on it and in the
case of Politico actually jumped on board.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 21:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
There's a huge difference between using the phrase and making it a MANTRA
of religious proportions, emblazoned on hundreds of thousands of ball
games and adopting primary the theme of a political campaign; although, at
Trump rallies, "Make America Great Again" came in second place to "Lock
her up!" and "Build that Wall!" - to which Trump would reflexively retort,
"And WHO'S going to pay for that wall? ... [chorus] "Mexico!" Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Almost all Presidential campaigns use similar language. But the same words
can be heard as a call to unity for good or a call for Xenophobia. Trump
emphasized the Xenophobia and was purposefully appealing to racists. Trump
supporters here have a parlor game of misinterpreting JFK's words to make
him into a rightwinger like themselves. So BEAR ANY BURDEN becomes start
many wars.
Mark
2018-06-21 21:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
I don't like the way Trump conducts himself but the media has gone to the
ramparts with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Want to see how Obama
treated children at the border? It's all over the internet but you won't
find the pictures on the leftwing mainstream media. Did you see what Peter
Fonda has been posting? The media hysteria is going to cause someone to
be killed. I think they are angry that the FBI's prejudice has been called
out and now they are lashing back on what is a difficult, complicated
issue.

Mark
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-22 22:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
I don't like the way Trump conducts himself but the media has gone to the
ramparts with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Want to see how Obama
treated children at the border? It's all over the internet but you won't
find the pictures on the leftwing mainstream media. Did you see what Peter
Fonda has been posting? The media hysteria is going to cause someone to
be killed. I think they are angry that the FBI's prejudice has been called
out and now they are lashing back on what is a difficult, complicated
issue.
The text messages by the FBI investigator (Peter Strzok) and his mistress
lawyer (also an FBI employee, Lisa Page) certainly reveal bias and
deserved to be looked into. And it was! I think it's fair to say they
didn't like Trump. But those are pretty bold claims that they're somehow
going to stop him from getting elected. Yet he DID get elected! So,
apparently, now they're out to get him now that he DID get elected.

Everybody has political bias - whether they articulate it or not. They got
caught articulating it. And, as FBI employees, it's particularly
embarrassing. Yet, ultimately, bias has to manifest itself in some
substantive way. Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you can
just make up damaging facts about them that are untrue. At the end of the
day, you're to have to make a case based on far more than "We don't like
him."

Mueller removed Strzok as soon as he found out about these text messages.

The basis of the Special Counsel is not even remotely based on this
agent's bias. In fact, the IG Report indicates that there was no
indication that any of the action made by the FBI, although not in
accordance with proper protocol, was not based on bias. In fact, a very
good argument can be made that the FBI's decisions damaged Clinton far
more than Trump.

But the Russia investigation is separate. There's some very good reasons
to conduct this investigation. It might turn up nothing. Maybe there was
no collusion. But NOT to investigate it is simply crazy considering the
findings of multiple intelligence agencies.

Let's say Roy Truly really hated Lee Oswald. Do you think Truly could tell
lies to the investigators to incriminate Oswald and seal the case on an
innocent man? Sure, he could lie, but ultimately Oswald would have been
convicted on the basis on far more than whatever disparaging things Roy
Truly may have lied about.

Not a good example, you say? "But Roy Truly wasn't conducting the
investigation on Lee Oswald." OK, fair enough.

OK, let's say Captain Fritz didn't like Lee Oswald and, by all accounts,
Fritz found Oswald very disagreeable, arrogant and uncooperative. He
didn't like him! Fritz even said so during an interview. So - what could
Fritz do about it? Plant evidence? Change the ballistic results? Change
the findings of the autopsy? Coerce other witnesses? Despite any animus
Fritz may have had ... even if he exaggerated incriminating things Oswald
may have said during the interrogations ... had Oswald gone to trial, the
HARD facts are would ultimately matter. THAT'S what would have convicted
Oswald.

So, I realize that FoxNews is having a field day with this - and it's
certainly fair criticism of those individuals in the FBI - but to
extrapolate that to a wider indictment of the entire FBI - the DoJ - and
the Mueller investigation sure seems to be making a lot out of bunch of
braggadocios, self-important bluster between an agent and his
girlfriend.

It doesn't change anything about Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George
Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner's
seeming obsession with Russia. At a minimum, it's worth looking into,
notwithstanding the bias of Peter Strzok.

You don't invalidate an investigation simply because you found somebody
who doesn't like the suspect. Although, Trump could certainly get some
good mileage from this. All it took was for Mark Fuhrman to lie about
saying "nigger" to derail a trial and allow a double murderer to go free.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-22 22:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
I don't like the way Trump conducts himself but the media has gone to the
ramparts with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Want to see how Obama
treated children at the border? It's all over the internet but you won't
find the pictures on the leftwing mainstream media. Did you see what Peter
Fonda has been posting? The media hysteria is going to cause someone to
be killed. I think they are angry that the FBI's prejudice has been called
out and now they are lashing back on what is a difficult, complicated
issue.
When Gayle King of CBS interviewed one of the men responsible for
enforcing the law at the border he told her he had been doing this since
2014 and she cut him off by saying she wasn't interested in what was
happening in 2014. Of course not. Obama was President then and she
couldn't blame Trump for that. She only wanted to focus on what has
happened under Trump which is pretty much what was happening under Obama
but it was OK then.
John McAdams
2018-06-22 22:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Mark
I don't like the way Trump conducts himself but the media has gone to the
ramparts with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Want to see how Obama
treated children at the border? It's all over the internet but you won't
find the pictures on the leftwing mainstream media. Did you see what Peter
Fonda has been posting? The media hysteria is going to cause someone to
be killed. I think they are angry that the FBI's prejudice has been called
out and now they are lashing back on what is a difficult, complicated
issue.
When Gayle King of CBS interviewed one of the men responsible for
enforcing the law at the border he told her he had been doing this since
2014 and she cut him off by saying she wasn't interested in what was
happening in 2014. Of course not. Obama was President then and she
couldn't blame Trump for that. She only wanted to focus on what has
happened under Trump which is pretty much what was happening under Obama
but it was OK then.
I think Emerling needs to quit making excuses for the mainstream
media.

A flat photographic lie from TIME:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5869829/Father-two-year-old-face-child-separation-crisis-speaks-out.html

Good journalism from the WASHINGTON POST, ignored by most media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1674cbe92386

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
Just as insidious are the things they choose NOT to report. For example,
during the 2016 general election campaign, Bill Clinton suggested that the
Trump slogan Make American Great Again was a dog whistle for a return to
the days of overt racism in the South. He ignored the fact that he used
that exact same phrase when announcing his own candidacy for the 1992
election and again during the 2008 primary campaign when he said Hillary
would "Make American Great Again". Did any of the left wing networks,
cable channels, or internet news services report that hypocrisy? Are you
kidding? They joined in.
I don't like the way Trump conducts himself but the media has gone to the
ramparts with the left wing of the Democratic Party. Want to see how Obama
treated children at the border? It's all over the internet but you won't
Well, maybe you didn't notice, but Trump represents the most rightwing
element in the Republican Party and he attacks the most leftwing element
of the Democratic. Reporting the facts is not taking sides. We know which
side you are on.
Post by Mark
find the pictures on the leftwing mainstream media. Did you see what Peter
Fonda has been posting? The media hysteria is going to cause someone to
be killed. I think they are angry that the FBI's prejudice has been called
So who is it that is going to be killed? When Trump was running I wore my
Bernie T-shirt as a protest. And one of the Trump supporters came up to me
and said that if I kept wearing that T-shirt someone was going to shoot
me.

Do I really have to remind you about the KKK guy from Ohio who ran over a
protestor? Lots of rightwing nuts in Shelby, Ohio.
Post by Mark
out and now they are lashing back on what is a difficult, complicated
issue.
Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 00:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
Look: you really dislike Trump, so you are making excuses for
absurdly biased journalism.
How do you justify the media publishing thing that are *untrue* about
Trump?
htps://sharylattkisson.com/2018/06/19/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/12/fake-news-about-donald-trump-compliation.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-anti-trump-media-blunders.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/03/fake-news-from-anti-trump-media.html
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2017/06/trump-fake-news-and-mainstream-media.html
In every case, the fake news was *unfavorable* to Trump.
There is no such thing as fake news. That is only a Trump meme.
Post by John McAdams
These are not random errors. They are the result of an utterly out of
control anti-Trump bias in the media.
So, you want to control the media. With troops or with assassination?
Ever hear of the US Consitution?
Post by John McAdams
And the fact that you *like* the anti-Trump coverage is not a good
excuse.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-06-20 17:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
Post by d***@gmail.com
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
We could say the same about Obama.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
The other way to look at it is that the Democrats are trying to find an
excuse for their stunning loss. It's what sore losers do.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit.
It doesn't surprise me either because I know what their agenda is.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
If the media really wanted to, they could have dug into the shady dealings
of the Clintons and Obama but they had no appetite for that. It would run
counter to their agendas.

I have largely tuned out the media. I don't trust a word they tell me
because I know they have taken sides. Would you trust a sports official to
call a fair game if you knew he had bet on one of the teams?
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-21 16:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
I'll admit that CNN is definitely left-leaning, but they are, by far, the
most balanced of the major cable news networks. And that largely explains
why their viewership is slowly defecting as people go to their corners.
Those corners are FoxNews (for the right) and MSNBC (for the left).

Think of the basic format of prime time CNN programming. It's usually
somebody like Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, sitting in the
middle of a split screen, sandwiched by pundits with diametrically
different views (i.e. pro-Trump and anti-Trump) debating whatever is the
topic-of-the-day - going back-and-forth where the host mostly moderates
and plays the role of referee. Sure, the host has obvious opinions, but
the guests do most of the talking.

In great contrast is MSNBC prime time programming, which usually has
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams going on, at length,
as to their personal opinions or they have a like-minded guest with whom
they bounce things off one another in an echo chamber.

FoxNews does the exact same thing with their prime time programming. In
fact, it's mostly Fox Entertainment - not news. It's Tucker Carlson, Sean
Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro doing pretty much the same thing
MSNBC does. The host mostly gives opinionated rants on whatever topic best
suits their political view - or, their guest is a similarly like-minded
person who they bounce similar ideas off of. They're just in a reciprocal
echo chamber. The Greg Gutfeld Show is pure silliness and has no
equivalent on CNN. It's comedic news. I often find it funny and witty, but
I don't delude myself that I'm getting up to speed on the news. I'm being
entertained. Of all the prime time hosts, Tucker Carlson is one of the few
who routinely takes on people of different views, but he usually picks
some no-name weakling, or some lefty-wacko to beat up on. I usually don't
even recognize some of his guests. They are seldom a reputable or
articulate representative of the opposing view.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Getting elected on "long odds" doesn't say anything about his behavior or
policies. In fact, the only "poll" he won was the actual election - the
only poll that ultimately mattered. In the final days, something caused
the tide to turn. We can argue about all the multi-faceted factors that
caused that to happen, but there's a REASON that Trump was behind in every
poll leading up to the election and ultimately lost the popular vote. It
was an interesting political anomaly that will probably be debated for
decades.

You can thank Mitch McConnell for Neil Gorsuch - by putting a freeze on
confirmation hearings upon the death of Antonin Acalia and refusing to
allow a replacement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Any Republican
elected to the presidency was going to result in a right-leaning
replacement on the Supreme Court. It could have been Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, Jeb Bush, or whomever ... it just happened to be Donald Trump. So,
we certainly didn't need Trump to get Neil Gorsuch. We just needed a
non-Democrat.

Even if I identified as a member of the Republican Party or, at a minimum,
I was inclined to embrace most of the classically conservative views, I'm
not so sure I would think a justice like Neil Gorsuch would be WORTH
having a president like Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch has already had
some liberal rulings. Justices will often surprise those who appointed
them once they get to the bench because they are no longer beholden to the
administration that appointed them (by design!). For instance, Gorsuch
ruled WITH the liberal justices and AGAINST a Trump policy on an important
immigration issue.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
There is sloth-like momentum with our economic. Unless there is some kind
of Black Swan event, it hardly ever does something suddenly.

I would agree with your assessment that a new president mostly inherits
what he has been handed from the previous president. So, to some extent,
yes, Clinton inherited what Bush41 handed him. But the effect is much more
pronounced when the previous president was a 2-term president because his
policies have had more time to actually start manifesting themselves in
some way. Bush41 was a 1-term president.

Trump hasn't been president long enough to give him as much credit for the
economy as he is giving himself. I think he's still in the "momentum
phase" of the previous administration. That's not to say that Trump has
had zero impact on the economy. In fact, I think the sharp upturn of the
stock market (almost immediately) upon his election was mostly
psychological in ANTICIPATION of what Trump MIGHT do that would benefit
businesses. But it certainly wasn't for what he had done. How could it?

And remember, the stock market is not "the economy". We've had troubled
economic times in the past where the stock market, inexplicably, continued
to do quite well. There are a lot of Trump supporters who could care less
about the stock market. They don't have 401Ks. They don't buy individual
stocks. The don't investment portfolios. They only care whether they can
pay next week's electric bill and whether getting their abscessed tooth
fixed will cost them more than $50.

We'll see how these tariffs, triggering an obvious trade war, will play
out for the average Trump supporter. Already Trump has sabotaged the
Affordable Care Act, hoping to make it untenable by holding those who rely
upon it as hostages to coerce Congress (the Democrats) to "repeal &
replace" Obamacare. Disproportionately, Trump supporters are medical
victims of this political standoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
And it's all because of Trump?

I work in the airline industry. It was a disaster after 9/11. Rampant
layoffs ... bankruptcies ... double bankruptcies ... lower wages ...
downsizing. We were told that there has been a paradigm shift in the
industry. It would never come back to the way it was. We'd simply have to
get used to the new norm. And, that seemed perfectly logical to me - and
many others.

Who could have predicted the wildly profitable comeback of the airline
industry? Quarter after quarter, most airlines have been experiencing
record profits. Wages have dramatically gone up. Record hiring. The
industry has reinvented itself and has found creative ways to generate
revenue and deal with fluctuating fuel prices.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Paul Manafort was "unrelated to the Trump campaign"? He was the campaign
manager!

The numerous "peripheral matters" are telling us something, however: There
are some very dishonest people in the Trump world and they all seem to
have some kind of connection with Russia.

Most of these "peripheral matters" are things that the Mueller
investigation has stumbled across (and simply can't ignore) while pursuing
the larger matter as to whether anybody involved with the Trump campaign
coordinated with a hostile foreign nation in an effort to gain access to
the Oval Office.

Indictments and convictions are, by law, public matters. Where the Special
Counsel is on the larger matter of collusion or obstruction is a complete
unknown ... because IT'S NOT COMPLETED!

C'mon, you have to admit, at a minimum, the president seems awfully
defensive and apoplectic on this issue - strangely so. It's not the calm
demeanor one would expect of a person who has nothing to hide and nothing
to fear.

It's worth investigating whether there was any coordination with Russia
within the Trump camp considering the already proven attempts of Russia to
influence American voters with an unprecedented social media campaign that
seemed particularly well-timed and indicated a very granular understanding
of the sentiments of the American electorate ... not to mention their
offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. says he never discussed that
Trump Tower meeting with his father. Do you believe that?
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
I don't know if Mueller has the "goods" on Trump. I do know that it's
worth investigating, however - because the Trump administration has an odd
lack of curiosity concerning (or acknowledgement) in the Russia's attempt
to create chaos and influence American sentiment.

What may very well happen is that there WAS collusion and Trump,
personally, had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just Don Jr, Jared
Kushner, Paul Manfort, Roger Stone, or ... who knows who? That would be
worth finding out.

The bottom line for me is this: I just don't see how anybody who thinks a
tax cut, or a tougher immigration policy, or protecting gun rights, or a
Pro-Life worldview (pick your issue!) is WORTH having a president like
Donald Trump.

We seem to be bigger buddies with the North Korean leader than with the
Prime Minister of friggin' Canada! Trump is an idiot! He's all
narcissistic bluster and, to me, that is such a toxic characteristic of a
U.S. president that what little gains he might be able to achieve will be
far overshadowed by the diminishing of the respect the United States has
experienced from the rest of the world (our friggin' allies!). Trump calls
it "being tough". Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-22 21:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
I'll admit that CNN is definitely left-leaning, but they are, by far, the
most balanced of the major cable news networks. And that largely explains
why their viewership is slowly defecting as people go to their corners.
Those corners are FoxNews (for the right) and MSNBC (for the left).
Think of the basic format of prime time CNN programming. It's usually
somebody like Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, sitting in the
middle of a split screen, sandwiched by pundits with diametrically
different views (i.e. pro-Trump and anti-Trump) debating whatever is the
topic-of-the-day - going back-and-forth where the host mostly moderates
and plays the role of referee. Sure, the host has obvious opinions, but
the guests do most of the talking.
What you are saying is that CNN doesn't press their thumb on the scale
quite as hard as MSNBC or Fox. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In great contrast is MSNBC prime time programming, which usually has
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams going on, at length,
as to their personal opinions or they have a like-minded guest with whom
they bounce things off one another in an echo chamber.
FoxNews does the exact same thing with their prime time programming. In
fact, it's mostly Fox Entertainment - not news. It's Tucker Carlson, Sean
Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro doing pretty much the same thing
MSNBC does. The host mostly gives opinionated rants on whatever topic best
suits their political view - or, their guest is a similarly like-minded
person who they bounce similar ideas off of. They're just in a reciprocal
echo chamber. The Greg Gutfeld Show is pure silliness and has no
equivalent on CNN.
I don't even know who Greg Gutfeld is which should tell you how much I
watch Fox.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It's comedic news. I often find it funny and witty, but
I don't delude myself that I'm getting up to speed on the news. I'm being
entertained. Of all the prime time hosts, Tucker Carlson is one of the few
who routinely takes on people of different views, but he usually picks
some no-name weakling, or some lefty-wacko to beat up on. I usually don't
even recognize some of his guests. They are seldom a reputable or
articulate representative of the opposing view.
Tucker Carlson is the one person on Fox I actually tune into on a
semi-regular basis. He is not a Trump cheerleader and has at times
criticized him but like me he recognizes how outrageous and one sided most
of the mainstream media has become in their coverage of him. You are right
he does bring on some lightweight guests from the other side but often
they are chosen because of outrageous comments they have made and he
brings them on to defend their positions. I find that practice far more
honest than MSNBC's tactic of using turncoat Republicans like Joe
Scarborough, Michael Steele, and Steve Schmidt to bash the GOP. I
mentioned those same three people in a post a few days ago and leave it to
Marsh to suggest I was being racist for criticizing Steele, ignoring the
fact I lumped him in with two white guys.

For my money, Fox has their best and brightest people on Fox Business
Channel. People like Lou Dobbs, John Stossel, and Kennedy. Dobbs was one
of the few pundits who actually thought early on Trump would be elected
president.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Getting elected on "long odds" doesn't say anything about his behavior or
policies. In fact, the only "poll" he won was the actual election - the
only poll that ultimately mattered. In the final days, something caused
the tide to turn. We can argue about all the multi-faceted factors that
caused that to happen, but there's a REASON that Trump was behind in every
poll leading up to the election and ultimately lost the popular vote. It
was an interesting political anomaly that will probably be debated for
decades.
You can thank Mitch McConnell for Neil Gorsuch - by putting a freeze on
confirmation hearings upon the death of Antonin Acalia and refusing to
allow a replacement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Any Republican
elected to the presidency was going to result in a right-leaning
replacement on the Supreme Court. It could have been Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, Jeb Bush, or whomever ... it just happened to be Donald Trump. So,
we certainly didn't need Trump to get Neil Gorsuch. We just needed a
non-Democrat.
Even if I identified as a member of the Republican Party or, at a minimum,
I was inclined to embrace most of the classically conservative views, I'm
not so sure I would think a justice like Neil Gorsuch would be WORTH
having a president like Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch has already had
some liberal rulings. Justices will often surprise those who appointed
them once they get to the bench because they are no longer beholden to the
administration that appointed them (by design!). For instance, Gorsuch
ruled WITH the liberal justices and AGAINST a Trump policy on an important
immigration issue.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
There is sloth-like momentum with our economic. Unless there is some kind
of Black Swan event, it hardly ever does something suddenly.
I would agree with your assessment that a new president mostly inherits
what he has been handed from the previous president. So, to some extent,
yes, Clinton inherited what Bush41 handed him. But the effect is much more
pronounced when the previous president was a 2-term president because his
policies have had more time to actually start manifesting themselves in
some way. Bush41 was a 1-term president.
Trump hasn't been president long enough to give him as much credit for the
economy as he is giving himself. I think he's still in the "momentum
phase" of the previous administration. That's not to say that Trump has
had zero impact on the economy. In fact, I think the sharp upturn of the
stock market (almost immediately) upon his election was mostly
psychological in ANTICIPATION of what Trump MIGHT do that would benefit
businesses. But it certainly wasn't for what he had done. How could it?
And remember, the stock market is not "the economy". We've had troubled
economic times in the past where the stock market, inexplicably, continued
to do quite well. There are a lot of Trump supporters who could care less
about the stock market. They don't have 401Ks. They don't buy individual
stocks. The don't investment portfolios. They only care whether they can
pay next week's electric bill and whether getting their abscessed tooth
fixed will cost them more than $50.
We'll see how these tariffs, triggering an obvious trade war, will play
out for the average Trump supporter. Already Trump has sabotaged the
Affordable Care Act, hoping to make it untenable by holding those who rely
upon it as hostages to coerce Congress (the Democrats) to "repeal &
replace" Obamacare. Disproportionately, Trump supporters are medical
victims of this political standoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
And it's all because of Trump?
I work in the airline industry. It was a disaster after 9/11. Rampant
layoffs ... bankruptcies ... double bankruptcies ... lower wages ...
downsizing. We were told that there has been a paradigm shift in the
industry. It would never come back to the way it was. We'd simply have to
get used to the new norm. And, that seemed perfectly logical to me - and
many others.
Who could have predicted the wildly profitable comeback of the airline
industry? Quarter after quarter, most airlines have been experiencing
record profits. Wages have dramatically gone up. Record hiring. The
industry has reinvented itself and has found creative ways to generate
revenue and deal with fluctuating fuel prices.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Paul Manafort was "unrelated to the Trump campaign"? He was the campaign
manager!
The numerous "peripheral matters" are telling us something, however: There
are some very dishonest people in the Trump world and they all seem to
have some kind of connection with Russia.
Most of these "peripheral matters" are things that the Mueller
investigation has stumbled across (and simply can't ignore) while pursuing
the larger matter as to whether anybody involved with the Trump campaign
coordinated with a hostile foreign nation in an effort to gain access to
the Oval Office.
Indictments and convictions are, by law, public matters. Where the Special
Counsel is on the larger matter of collusion or obstruction is a complete
unknown ... because IT'S NOT COMPLETED!
C'mon, you have to admit, at a minimum, the president seems awfully
defensive and apoplectic on this issue - strangely so. It's not the calm
demeanor one would expect of a person who has nothing to hide and nothing
to fear.
It's worth investigating whether there was any coordination with Russia
within the Trump camp considering the already proven attempts of Russia to
influence American voters with an unprecedented social media campaign that
seemed particularly well-timed and indicated a very granular understanding
of the sentiments of the American electorate ... not to mention their
offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. says he never discussed that
Trump Tower meeting with his father. Do you believe that?
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
I don't know if Mueller has the "goods" on Trump. I do know that it's
worth investigating, however - because the Trump administration has an odd
lack of curiosity concerning (or acknowledgement) in the Russia's attempt
to create chaos and influence American sentiment.
What may very well happen is that there WAS collusion and Trump,
personally, had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just Don Jr, Jared
Kushner, Paul Manfort, Roger Stone, or ... who knows who? That would be
worth finding out.
The bottom line for me is this: I just don't see how anybody who thinks a
tax cut, or a tougher immigration policy, or protecting gun rights, or a
Pro-Life worldview (pick your issue!) is WORTH having a president like
Donald Trump.
We seem to be bigger buddies with the North Korean leader than with the
Prime Minister of friggin' Canada!
Canada doesn't have nukes.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is an idiot!
There are lots of legitimate criticisms of Trump but being an idiot isn't
one of them. Some people think he blundered his way to the White House but
the fact is behind all that bluster is a crazy fox. Conniving if you
prefer but the course he charted to the presidency was a brilliant one. He
had his eye on the White House as early as 2000, maybe even earlier but he
was looking for the right time. He seriously tested the waters in 2012 but
realized the time wasn't right. In 2015 he saw the opening and he pounced.
He understood there were large numbers of disillusioned Republicans AND
Democrats and he crafted an America First message that would appeal to
both groups. He abandoned pro-choice and pro-gun control position he had
taken before he thought about running for office. He easily won the
nomination and then went on to score the biggest upset in the history of
presidential politics, even bigger than DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.
Post by d***@gmail.com
He's all
narcissistic bluster and, to me, that is such a toxic characteristic of a
U.S. president that what little gains he might be able to achieve will be
far overshadowed by the diminishing of the respect the United States has
experienced from the rest of the world (our friggin' allies!). Trump calls
it "being tough". Pfft!
Behind all that narcissistic bluster is a shrewd operator. There are
actually two Donald Trumps. The one that is visible to the public who
comes off as a buffoon at times and the one we don't see behind closed
doors who is a rational deal maker and that is his strength. Keith
Olbermann, a raging liberal who lives in Trump Tower and would often run
into him before Trump ran for president, said behind the scenes he is both
rational and soft spoken, a far cry from the very visible egomaniac he
plays before the cameras and on Twitter.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 21:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
Right. You think there should be a level playing field for Evil against
Good.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'll admit that CNN is definitely left-leaning, but they are, by far, the
They haven't always been and have recently produced shows defending the
WC.
Post by d***@gmail.com
most balanced of the major cable news networks. And that largely explains
I don't want balanced. I want news to attack evil.
Post by d***@gmail.com
why their viewership is slowly defecting as people go to their corners.
Those corners are FoxNews (for the right) and MSNBC (for the left).
Think of the basic format of prime time CNN programming. It's usually
somebody like Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, sitting in the
middle of a split screen, sandwiched by pundits with diametrically
different views (i.e. pro-Trump and anti-Trump) debating whatever is the
topic-of-the-day - going back-and-forth where the host mostly moderates
and plays the role of referee. Sure, the host has obvious opinions, but
the guests do most of the talking.
In great contrast is MSNBC prime time programming, which usually has
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams going on, at length,
as to their personal opinions or they have a like-minded guest with whom
they bounce things off one another in an echo chamber.
Yeah, and so?
Post by d***@gmail.com
FoxNews does the exact same thing with their prime time programming. In
fact, it's mostly Fox Entertainment - not news. It's Tucker Carlson, Sean
Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro doing pretty much the same thing
MSNBC does. The host mostly gives opinionated rants on whatever topic best
suits their political view - or, their guest is a similarly like-minded
person who they bounce similar ideas off of. They're just in a reciprocal
echo chamber. The Greg Gutfeld Show is pure silliness and has no
equivalent on CNN. It's comedic news. I often find it funny and witty, but
I don't delude myself that I'm getting up to speed on the news. I'm being
entertained. Of all the prime time hosts, Tucker Carlson is one of the few
who routinely takes on people of different views, but he usually picks
some no-name weakling, or some lefty-wacko to beat up on. I usually don't
even recognize some of his guests. They are seldom a reputable or
articulate representative of the opposing view.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Getting elected on "long odds" doesn't say anything about his behavior or
policies. In fact, the only "poll" he won was the actual election - the
only poll that ultimately mattered. In the final days, something caused
No, it didn't. Hillary got the most votes.
But that didn't matter, because the Republicans had rigged the system.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the tide to turn. We can argue about all the multi-faceted factors that
caused that to happen, but there's a REASON that Trump was behind in every
poll leading up to the election and ultimately lost the popular vote. It
was an interesting political anomaly that will probably be debated for
decades.
Just because 99% o blacks said they would vote against Trump does not
mean that they were actually allowed to vote.
The margin was slim.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You can thank Mitch McConnell for Neil Gorsuch - by putting a freeze on
confirmation hearings upon the death of Antonin Acalia and refusing to
allow a replacement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Any Republican
elected to the presidency was going to result in a right-leaning
replacement on the Supreme Court. It could have been Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, Jeb Bush, or whomever ... it just happened to be Donald Trump. So,
we certainly didn't need Trump to get Neil Gorsuch. We just needed a
non-Democrat.
That's what I mean by rigging the system. Corruption. Not even allowing
a vote.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even if I identified as a member of the Republican Party or, at a minimum,
I was inclined to embrace most of the classically conservative views, I'm
not so sure I would think a justice like Neil Gorsuch would be WORTH
having a president like Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch has already had
some liberal rulings. Justices will often surprise those who appointed
them once they get to the bench because they are no longer beholden to the
administration that appointed them (by design!). For instance, Gorsuch
ruled WITH the liberal justices and AGAINST a Trump policy on an important
immigration issue.
See, you can't trust these so-called Nazis? Did you see that Cohen just
said about Trumpt's policy of kidnapping babies? Remind him of Nazi
Germany. I know someone here who tried to make the same point, but his
message was censored by a Trump suporter.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
There is sloth-like momentum with our economic. Unless there is some kind
of Black Swan event, it hardly ever does something suddenly.
So you have a defect in your computer that you are not able to look at
the charts posted on the web sites and see the lines going up and down?
Then Try printing them out and use a magnifying glass.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I would agree with your assessment that a new president mostly inherits
what he has been handed from the previous president. So, to some extent,
yes, Clinton inherited what Bush41 handed him. But the effect is much more
pronounced when the previous president was a 2-term president because his
policies have had more time to actually start manifesting themselves in
some way. Bush41 was a 1-term president.
Ever hear of the Great Depression? Ever hear of FDR? Did he say the
economy on the day he was elected? Or did he have to wait to get sworn in
and then get legislation passed to sign into law?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump hasn't been president long enough to give him as much credit for the
economy as he is giving himself. I think he's still in the "momentum
That is a very good excuse except that Trump always takes credit for
anything good that happens and never accepts any responsibility for
anything bad that happens. So the Sun rises and he says,"I did that" but
when the Sun sets he blames it on Obama.
Post by d***@gmail.com
phase" of the previous administration. That's not to say that Trump has
had zero impact on the economy. In fact, I think the sharp upturn of the
stock market (almost immediately) upon his election was mostly
psychological in ANTICIPATION of what Trump MIGHT do that would benefit
businesses. But it certainly wasn't for what he had done. How could it?
And remember, the stock market is not "the economy". We've had troubled
The stock market REACTS.
Post by d***@gmail.com
economic times in the past where the stock market, inexplicably, continued
to do quite well. There are a lot of Trump supporters who could care less
about the stock market. They don't have 401Ks. They don't buy individual
stocks. The don't investment portfolios. They only care whether they can
pay next week's electric bill and whether getting their abscessed tooth
fixed will cost them more than $50.
We'll see how these tariffs, triggering an obvious trade war, will play
out for the average Trump supporter. Already Trump has sabotaged the
Affordable Care Act, hoping to make it untenable by holding those who rely
upon it as hostages to coerce Congress (the Democrats) to "repeal &
replace" Obamacare. Disproportionately, Trump supporters are medical
victims of this political standoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
And it's all because of Trump?
I work in the airline industry. It was a disaster after 9/11. Rampant
layoffs ... bankruptcies ... double bankruptcies ... lower wages ...
Then why can't you blame everything bad on al Qaeda?
Just don't tell anyone who originally formed and funded al Qaeda!
Post by d***@gmail.com
downsizing. We were told that there has been a paradigm shift in the
industry. It would never come back to the way it was. We'd simply have to
get used to the new norm. And, that seemed perfectly logical to me - and
many others.
Who could have predicted the wildly profitable comeback of the airline
industry? Quarter after quarter, most airlines have been experiencing
record profits. Wages have dramatically gone up. Record hiring. The
industry has reinvented itself and has found creative ways to generate
revenue and deal with fluctuating fuel prices.
I did.
It's called a REBOUND.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Paul Manafort was "unrelated to the Trump campaign"? He was the campaign
manager!
The numerous "peripheral matters" are telling us something, however: There
are some very dishonest people in the Trump world and they all seem to
have some kind of connection with Russia.
Most of these "peripheral matters" are things that the Mueller
investigation has stumbled across (and simply can't ignore) while pursuing
the larger matter as to whether anybody involved with the Trump campaign
coordinated with a hostile foreign nation in an effort to gain access to
the Oval Office.
Indictments and convictions are, by law, public matters. Where the Special
Counsel is on the larger matter of collusion or obstruction is a complete
unknown ... because IT'S NOT COMPLETED!
C'mon, you have to admit, at a minimum, the president seems awfully
defensive and apoplectic on this issue - strangely so. It's not the calm
demeanor one would expect of a person who has nothing to hide and nothing
to fear.
A guilty man is always the one shooting that he never did anything wrong.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It's worth investigating whether there was any coordination with Russia
within the Trump camp considering the already proven attempts of Russia to
influence American voters with an unprecedented social media campaign that
seemed particularly well-timed and indicated a very granular understanding
of the sentiments of the American electorate ... not to mention their
offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. says he never discussed that
Trump Tower meeting with his father. Do you believe that?
Cohen id ready to flip. Give Manafort a couple more months.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
I don't know if Mueller has the "goods" on Trump. I do know that it's
worth investigating, however - because the Trump administration has an odd
lack of curiosity concerning (or acknowledgement) in the Russia's attempt
to create chaos and influence American sentiment.
The charge is Treason.
Not influence peddling.
Post by d***@gmail.com
What may very well happen is that there WAS collusion and Trump,
personally, had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just Don Jr, Jared
I like that very much. Like Nixon had no idea what his plumbers were
doing. Gordon Who? Is that John Hunt from the movies?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Kushner, Paul Manfort, Roger Stone, or ... who knows who? That would be
worth finding out.
The bottom line for me is this: I just don't see how anybody who thinks a
tax cut, or a tougher immigration policy, or protecting gun rights, or a
Pro-Life worldview (pick your issue!) is WORTH having a president like
Donald Trump.
You can't get them without a dictator. Pence is not tough enough.
Post by d***@gmail.com
We seem to be bigger buddies with the North Korean leader than with the
Prime Minister of friggin' Canada! Trump is an idiot! He's all
narcissistic bluster and, to me, that is such a toxic characteristic of a
U.S. president that what little gains he might be able to achieve will be
far overshadowed by the diminishing of the respect the United States has
experienced from the rest of the world (our friggin' allies!). Trump calls
it "being tough". Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-06-22 23:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
I'll admit that CNN is definitely left-leaning, but they are, by far, the
most balanced of the major cable news networks. And that largely explains
why their viewership is slowly defecting as people go to their corners.
Those corners are FoxNews (for the right) and MSNBC (for the left).
Think of the basic format of prime time CNN programming. It's usually
somebody like Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, sitting in the
middle of a split screen, sandwiched by pundits with diametrically
different views (i.e. pro-Trump and anti-Trump) debating whatever is the
topic-of-the-day - going back-and-forth where the host mostly moderates
and plays the role of referee. Sure, the host has obvious opinions, but
the guests do most of the talking.
In great contrast is MSNBC prime time programming, which usually has
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams going on, at length,
as to their personal opinions or they have a like-minded guest with whom
they bounce things off one another in an echo chamber.
FoxNews does the exact same thing with their prime time programming. In
fact, it's mostly Fox Entertainment - not news. It's Tucker Carlson, Sean
Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro doing pretty much the same thing
MSNBC does. The host mostly gives opinionated rants on whatever topic best
suits their political view - or, their guest is a similarly like-minded
person who they bounce similar ideas off of. They're just in a reciprocal
echo chamber. The Greg Gutfeld Show is pure silliness and has no
equivalent on CNN. It's comedic news. I often find it funny and witty, but
I don't delude myself that I'm getting up to speed on the news. I'm being
entertained. Of all the prime time hosts, Tucker Carlson is one of the few
who routinely takes on people of different views, but he usually picks
some no-name weakling, or some lefty-wacko to beat up on. I usually don't
even recognize some of his guests. They are seldom a reputable or
articulate representative of the opposing view.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Getting elected on "long odds" doesn't say anything about his behavior or
policies. In fact, the only "poll" he won was the actual election - the
only poll that ultimately mattered. In the final days, something caused
the tide to turn. We can argue about all the multi-faceted factors that
caused that to happen, but there's a REASON that Trump was behind in every
poll leading up to the election and ultimately lost the popular vote. It
was an interesting political anomaly that will probably be debated for
decades.
You can thank Mitch McConnell for Neil Gorsuch - by putting a freeze on
confirmation hearings upon the death of Antonin Acalia and refusing to
allow a replacement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Any Republican
elected to the presidency was going to result in a right-leaning
replacement on the Supreme Court. It could have been Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, Jeb Bush, or whomever ... it just happened to be Donald Trump. So,
we certainly didn't need Trump to get Neil Gorsuch. We just needed a
non-Democrat.
Even if I identified as a member of the Republican Party or, at a minimum,
I was inclined to embrace most of the classically conservative views, I'm
not so sure I would think a justice like Neil Gorsuch would be WORTH
having a president like Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch has already had
some liberal rulings. Justices will often surprise those who appointed
them once they get to the bench because they are no longer beholden to the
administration that appointed them (by design!). For instance, Gorsuch
ruled WITH the liberal justices and AGAINST a Trump policy on an important
immigration issue.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
There is sloth-like momentum with our economic. Unless there is some kind
of Black Swan event, it hardly ever does something suddenly.
I would agree with your assessment that a new president mostly inherits
what he has been handed from the previous president. So, to some extent,
yes, Clinton inherited what Bush41 handed him. But the effect is much more
pronounced when the previous president was a 2-term president because his
policies have had more time to actually start manifesting themselves in
some way. Bush41 was a 1-term president.
Trump hasn't been president long enough to give him as much credit for the
economy as he is giving himself. I think he's still in the "momentum
phase" of the previous administration. That's not to say that Trump has
had zero impact on the economy. In fact, I think the sharp upturn of the
stock market (almost immediately) upon his election was mostly
psychological in ANTICIPATION of what Trump MIGHT do that would benefit
businesses. But it certainly wasn't for what he had done. How could it?
And remember, the stock market is not "the economy". We've had troubled
economic times in the past where the stock market, inexplicably, continued
to do quite well. There are a lot of Trump supporters who could care less
about the stock market. They don't have 401Ks. They don't buy individual
stocks. The don't investment portfolios. They only care whether they can
pay next week's electric bill and whether getting their abscessed tooth
fixed will cost them more than $50.
We'll see how these tariffs, triggering an obvious trade war, will play
out for the average Trump supporter. Already Trump has sabotaged the
Affordable Care Act, hoping to make it untenable by holding those who rely
upon it as hostages to coerce Congress (the Democrats) to "repeal &
replace" Obamacare. Disproportionately, Trump supporters are medical
victims of this political standoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
And it's all because of Trump?
I work in the airline industry. It was a disaster after 9/11. Rampant
layoffs ... bankruptcies ... double bankruptcies ... lower wages ...
downsizing. We were told that there has been a paradigm shift in the
industry. It would never come back to the way it was. We'd simply have to
get used to the new norm. And, that seemed perfectly logical to me - and
many others.
Who could have predicted the wildly profitable comeback of the airline
industry? Quarter after quarter, most airlines have been experiencing
record profits. Wages have dramatically gone up. Record hiring. The
industry has reinvented itself and has found creative ways to generate
revenue and deal with fluctuating fuel prices.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Paul Manafort was "unrelated to the Trump campaign"? He was the campaign
manager!
The numerous "peripheral matters" are telling us something, however: There
are some very dishonest people in the Trump world and they all seem to
have some kind of connection with Russia.
Most of these "peripheral matters" are things that the Mueller
investigation has stumbled across (and simply can't ignore) while pursuing
the larger matter as to whether anybody involved with the Trump campaign
coordinated with a hostile foreign nation in an effort to gain access to
the Oval Office.
Indictments and convictions are, by law, public matters. Where the Special
Counsel is on the larger matter of collusion or obstruction is a complete
unknown ... because IT'S NOT COMPLETED!
C'mon, you have to admit, at a minimum, the president seems awfully
defensive and apoplectic on this issue - strangely so. It's not the calm
demeanor one would expect of a person who has nothing to hide and nothing
to fear.
It's worth investigating whether there was any coordination with Russia
within the Trump camp considering the already proven attempts of Russia to
influence American voters with an unprecedented social media campaign that
seemed particularly well-timed and indicated a very granular understanding
of the sentiments of the American electorate ... not to mention their
offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. says he never discussed that
Trump Tower meeting with his father. Do you believe that?
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
I don't know if Mueller has the "goods" on Trump. I do know that it's
worth investigating, however - because the Trump administration has an odd
lack of curiosity concerning (or acknowledgement) in the Russia's attempt
to create chaos and influence American sentiment.
What may very well happen is that there WAS collusion and Trump,
personally, had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just Don Jr, Jared
Kushner, Paul Manfort, Roger Stone, or ... who knows who? That would be
worth finding out.
The bottom line for me is this: I just don't see how anybody who thinks a
tax cut, or a tougher immigration policy, or protecting gun rights, or a
Pro-Life worldview (pick your issue!) is WORTH having a president like
Donald Trump.
We seem to be bigger buddies with the North Korean leader than with the
Prime Minister of friggin' Canada! Trump is an idiot! He's all
narcissistic bluster and, to me, that is such a toxic characteristic of a
U.S. president that what little gains he might be able to achieve will be
far overshadowed by the diminishing of the respect the United States has
experienced from the rest of the world (our friggin' allies!). Trump calls
it "being tough". Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
CNN IS THE MOST BALANCED. THAT'S A GOOD ONE. SOME OF THE JOURNALISTS ARE
MENTALLY UNBALANCED, DERANGED, AND BATSHIT. JUSTIN TRUDEAU IS A MEMBER OF
THE UNITED NATIONS PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY. TRUDEAU'S FATHER WAS A FRIEND
OF FIDEL CASTRO. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CANADA MR. EMERLING. TRIVIA
QUESTION WHAT IS THE CAPITAL CITY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND?
BOZ
2018-06-22 23:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
I'll admit that CNN is definitely left-leaning, but they are, by far, the
most balanced of the major cable news networks. And that largely explains
why their viewership is slowly defecting as people go to their corners.
Those corners are FoxNews (for the right) and MSNBC (for the left).
Think of the basic format of prime time CNN programming. It's usually
somebody like Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon, sitting in the
middle of a split screen, sandwiched by pundits with diametrically
different views (i.e. pro-Trump and anti-Trump) debating whatever is the
topic-of-the-day - going back-and-forth where the host mostly moderates
and plays the role of referee. Sure, the host has obvious opinions, but
the guests do most of the talking.
In great contrast is MSNBC prime time programming, which usually has
Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams going on, at length,
as to their personal opinions or they have a like-minded guest with whom
they bounce things off one another in an echo chamber.
FoxNews does the exact same thing with their prime time programming. In
fact, it's mostly Fox Entertainment - not news. It's Tucker Carlson, Sean
Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro doing pretty much the same thing
MSNBC does. The host mostly gives opinionated rants on whatever topic best
suits their political view - or, their guest is a similarly like-minded
person who they bounce similar ideas off of. They're just in a reciprocal
echo chamber. The Greg Gutfeld Show is pure silliness and has no
equivalent on CNN. It's comedic news. I often find it funny and witty, but
I don't delude myself that I'm getting up to speed on the news. I'm being
entertained. Of all the prime time hosts, Tucker Carlson is one of the few
who routinely takes on people of different views, but he usually picks
some no-name weakling, or some lefty-wacko to beat up on. I usually don't
even recognize some of his guests. They are seldom a reputable or
articulate representative of the opposing view.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Getting elected on "long odds" doesn't say anything about his behavior or
policies. In fact, the only "poll" he won was the actual election - the
only poll that ultimately mattered. In the final days, something caused
the tide to turn. We can argue about all the multi-faceted factors that
caused that to happen, but there's a REASON that Trump was behind in every
poll leading up to the election and ultimately lost the popular vote. It
was an interesting political anomaly that will probably be debated for
decades.
You can thank Mitch McConnell for Neil Gorsuch - by putting a freeze on
confirmation hearings upon the death of Antonin Acalia and refusing to
allow a replacement as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Any Republican
elected to the presidency was going to result in a right-leaning
replacement on the Supreme Court. It could have been Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, Jeb Bush, or whomever ... it just happened to be Donald Trump. So,
we certainly didn't need Trump to get Neil Gorsuch. We just needed a
non-Democrat.
Even if I identified as a member of the Republican Party or, at a minimum,
I was inclined to embrace most of the classically conservative views, I'm
not so sure I would think a justice like Neil Gorsuch would be WORTH
having a president like Donald Trump. Besides, Gorsuch has already had
some liberal rulings. Justices will often surprise those who appointed
them once they get to the bench because they are no longer beholden to the
administration that appointed them (by design!). For instance, Gorsuch
ruled WITH the liberal justices and AGAINST a Trump policy on an important
immigration issue.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
There is sloth-like momentum with our economic. Unless there is some kind
of Black Swan event, it hardly ever does something suddenly.
I would agree with your assessment that a new president mostly inherits
what he has been handed from the previous president. So, to some extent,
yes, Clinton inherited what Bush41 handed him. But the effect is much more
pronounced when the previous president was a 2-term president because his
policies have had more time to actually start manifesting themselves in
some way. Bush41 was a 1-term president.
Trump hasn't been president long enough to give him as much credit for the
economy as he is giving himself. I think he's still in the "momentum
phase" of the previous administration. That's not to say that Trump has
had zero impact on the economy. In fact, I think the sharp upturn of the
stock market (almost immediately) upon his election was mostly
psychological in ANTICIPATION of what Trump MIGHT do that would benefit
businesses. But it certainly wasn't for what he had done. How could it?
And remember, the stock market is not "the economy". We've had troubled
economic times in the past where the stock market, inexplicably, continued
to do quite well. There are a lot of Trump supporters who could care less
about the stock market. They don't have 401Ks. They don't buy individual
stocks. The don't investment portfolios. They only care whether they can
pay next week's electric bill and whether getting their abscessed tooth
fixed will cost them more than $50.
We'll see how these tariffs, triggering an obvious trade war, will play
out for the average Trump supporter. Already Trump has sabotaged the
Affordable Care Act, hoping to make it untenable by holding those who rely
upon it as hostages to coerce Congress (the Democrats) to "repeal &
replace" Obamacare. Disproportionately, Trump supporters are medical
victims of this political standoff.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
And it's all because of Trump?
I work in the airline industry. It was a disaster after 9/11. Rampant
layoffs ... bankruptcies ... double bankruptcies ... lower wages ...
downsizing. We were told that there has been a paradigm shift in the
industry. It would never come back to the way it was. We'd simply have to
get used to the new norm. And, that seemed perfectly logical to me - and
many others.
Who could have predicted the wildly profitable comeback of the airline
industry? Quarter after quarter, most airlines have been experiencing
record profits. Wages have dramatically gone up. Record hiring. The
industry has reinvented itself and has found creative ways to generate
revenue and deal with fluctuating fuel prices.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
Paul Manafort was "unrelated to the Trump campaign"? He was the campaign
manager!
The numerous "peripheral matters" are telling us something, however: There
are some very dishonest people in the Trump world and they all seem to
have some kind of connection with Russia.
Most of these "peripheral matters" are things that the Mueller
investigation has stumbled across (and simply can't ignore) while pursuing
the larger matter as to whether anybody involved with the Trump campaign
coordinated with a hostile foreign nation in an effort to gain access to
the Oval Office.
Indictments and convictions are, by law, public matters. Where the Special
Counsel is on the larger matter of collusion or obstruction is a complete
unknown ... because IT'S NOT COMPLETED!
C'mon, you have to admit, at a minimum, the president seems awfully
defensive and apoplectic on this issue - strangely so. It's not the calm
demeanor one would expect of a person who has nothing to hide and nothing
to fear.
It's worth investigating whether there was any coordination with Russia
within the Trump camp considering the already proven attempts of Russia to
influence American voters with an unprecedented social media campaign that
seemed particularly well-timed and indicated a very granular understanding
of the sentiments of the American electorate ... not to mention their
offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr. says he never discussed that
Trump Tower meeting with his father. Do you believe that?
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
I don't know if Mueller has the "goods" on Trump. I do know that it's
worth investigating, however - because the Trump administration has an odd
lack of curiosity concerning (or acknowledgement) in the Russia's attempt
to create chaos and influence American sentiment.
What may very well happen is that there WAS collusion and Trump,
personally, had nothing to do with it. Maybe it was just Don Jr, Jared
Kushner, Paul Manfort, Roger Stone, or ... who knows who? That would be
worth finding out.
The bottom line for me is this: I just don't see how anybody who thinks a
tax cut, or a tougher immigration policy, or protecting gun rights, or a
Pro-Life worldview (pick your issue!) is WORTH having a president like
Donald Trump.
We seem to be bigger buddies with the North Korean leader than with the
Prime Minister of friggin' Canada! Trump is an idiot! He's all
narcissistic bluster and, to me, that is such a toxic characteristic of a
U.S. president that what little gains he might be able to achieve will be
far overshadowed by the diminishing of the respect the United States has
experienced from the rest of the world (our friggin' allies!). Trump calls
it "being tough". Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
YOU ARE NOY A LAWYER MR. EMERLING. Harvard Law School Professor Alan
Dershowitz SAID on TV that "it is not a crime to collude with a foreign
country."
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
What I want to see is balance. There is none in any of the networks or the
When you say balance you mean white wash. Never reveal any crimes.
Always cover up eberything.
Post by bigdog
cable news channels. They all have an agenda and will not report anything
that doesn't advance their agendas. Why aren't they reporting about
economy which is going gangbusters. Lowest unemployment in two decades and
Great, why don't you remind everyone about how Hitler saved the economy
of Germany. They created millions of new jobs torturing and burning Jews.
Post by bigdog
forecast GDP growth of 4%. Because that would be favorable to Trump and
they have no interest in doing that. Fox does the same thing but they are
the only major news source with a conservative slant. The rest of them are
propaganda machines for the DNC.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
He needs to point that out because the liberal media is trying to keep
that a secret. Yes I cringe about some of the things he tweets but he got
elected against long odds by doing that so why should he change. I care
more about what he does than what he says. Neil Gorsuch alone is a good
enough reason for me to be glad he won and the tax cut has jump started
the economy. Neither of those would have happened had Hillary been
elected.
Post by d***@gmail.com
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression.
Well if we want to play that game we can point out that Bush41 handed over
to Clinton an economy that was already in recovery and the economic
downturn began before Clinton turned it over to Bush43. The roaring
economy under Clinton was driven largely buy the tech bubble and that
bubble burst 10 months before Bush43 took office.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Under Obama we were told 2% GDP growth was the new norm. It is now
forecast to be 4% and the tax cut was a big factor in that. Companies
started putting their cash to work because of lower corporate tax cuts and
workers saw bonuses and raises.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government.
I'll believe it when I see it. So far all he has done is indict peripheral
players for things completely unrelated to the Trump campaign.
You mean like the Campaign manager? You are in denial.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
OK, OK, not evidence that Trump himself colluded. Just Treason.
Post by bigdog
If you wanted to assume Mueller has the goods on Trump, you are free to do
so. To me it seems like an investigation in search of a crime. My guess is
he won't show his cards until after the midterms because he's not holding
much of a hand.
Post by d***@gmail.com
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
We could say the same about Obama.
Name them. Show me a side by side chart with Russians.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
The other way to look at it is that the Democrats are trying to find an
excuse for their stunning loss. It's what sore losers do.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit.
It doesn't surprise me either because I know what their agenda is.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
If the media really wanted to, they could have dug into the shady dealings
of the Clintons and Obama but they had no appetite for that. It would run
counter to their agendas.
They did and they found nothing important. Mueller did and he admits he
found nothing important. If we are going to jail people for misusing a
server, what do we do about McAdams?
Post by bigdog
I have largely tuned out the media. I don't trust a word they tell me
To be a true Trump supporter.
Post by bigdog
because I know they have taken sides. Would you trust a sports official to
call a fair game if you knew he had bet on one of the teams?
Are you accusing Fox News of malfeasance?
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-20 18:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government. That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit. Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
It's not just the excessive coverage, it's the hysterical and overwrought
coverage.

You think that's warranted because, well, you hate Trump. Fine. I hate
what he does and how he acts. But the press isn't supposed to hate Trump
and they're not supposed to let their emotions - as Woodward said he sees
them doing - affect their coverage.

You cannot imagine how Trump can be unfairly covered. I disagree.

As I said, we should be able to balance several ideas in our heads. That
is, Trump is reckless and irresponsible AND the press coverage, while
warranted, has also been reckless and irresponsible.

I think the fact that the liberal/left has few or no complaints about the
critical coverage of Trump tells us something. The dog that didn't bark
sort of thing.
bigdog
2018-06-21 16:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government. That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit. Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
It's not just the excessive coverage, it's the hysterical and overwrought
coverage.
You think that's warranted because, well, you hate Trump. Fine. I hate
what he does and how he acts. But the press isn't supposed to hate Trump
and they're not supposed to let their emotions - as Woodward said he sees
them doing - affect their coverage.
You cannot imagine how Trump can be unfairly covered. I disagree.
As I said, we should be able to balance several ideas in our heads. That
is, Trump is reckless and irresponsible AND the press coverage, while
warranted, has also been reckless and irresponsible.
I think the fact that the liberal/left has few or no complaints about the
critical coverage of Trump tells us something. The dog that didn't bark
sort of thing.
I recently saw an interview with Bob Woodward talking about the movie All
the President's Men. The movie of course was based on the book he co-wrote
with Carl Bernstein. Woodward has been a lifelong Republican while
Bernstein is quite liberal in his views so one would expect that there was
some balance to the book and movie. Woodward said the movie for the most
part was a factual telling of the story with the exception of their late
night meeting with Ben Bradlee outside of his house. He said that was pure
Hollywood. Ben Bradlee of course was a close friend of JFK's going back to
when Bradlee was a reporter and JFK was Senator. Bradlee's political
leanings were no secret but he didn't let that influence his integrity as
a newsman. Getting the story right was far more important to him than
getting Nixon and that came across in both the book and the movie.

I don't see that kind of integrity any more in either the print or
electronic media. Their primary concern is to advance their agenda and
they don't seem to be bothered with little things like facts. If it's what
they want to hear, they'll run with it.

Another little trick of theirs is to report what other dubious sources
have reported. For example when Buzzfeed reported that the Steele dossier
indicated Trump had deep ties to Russia, the major news services could
then jump on board and "accurately" report what Buzzfeed had said without
every checking the validity of what was in the Steele dossier or the
Buzzfeed report. It is tantamount to reporting rumors which is not
something journalists worth their salt would do but this is what news
reporting has sunk to in this country.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government. That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit. Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
It's not just the excessive coverage, it's the hysterical and overwrought
coverage.
Bannon explain that this is part of his plan. To create outrage.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
You think that's warranted because, well, you hate Trump. Fine. I hate
what he does and how he acts. But the press isn't supposed to hate Trump
and they're not supposed to let their emotions - as Woodward said he sees
them doing - affect their coverage.
You cannot imagine how Trump can be unfairly covered. I disagree.
As I said, we should be able to balance several ideas in our heads. That
is, Trump is reckless and irresponsible AND the press coverage, while
warranted, has also been reckless and irresponsible.
I think the fact that the liberal/left has few or no complaints about the
critical coverage of Trump tells us something. The dog that didn't bark
sort of thing.
I recently saw an interview with Bob Woodward talking about the movie All
with Carl Bernstein. Woodward has been a lifelong Republican while
Bernstein is quite liberal in his views so one would expect that there was
some balance to the book and movie. Woodward said the movie for the most
part was a factual telling of the story with the exception of their late
night meeting with Ben Bradlee outside of his house. He said that was pure
Hollywood. Ben Bradlee of course was a close friend of JFK's going back to
when Bradlee was a reporter and JFK was Senator. Bradlee's political
leanings were no secret but he didn't let that influence his integrity as
a newsman. Getting the story right was far more important to him than
getting Nixon and that came across in both the book and the movie.
I don't see that kind of integrity any more in either the print or
electronic media. Their primary concern is to advance their agenda and
they don't seem to be bothered with little things like facts. If it's what
they want to hear, they'll run with it.
Another little trick of theirs is to report what other dubious sources
have reported. For example when Buzzfeed reported that the Steele dossier
indicated Trump had deep ties to Russia, the major news services could
then jump on board and "accurately" report what Buzzfeed had said without
every checking the validity of what was in the Steele dossier or the
Buzzfeed report. It is tantamount to reporting rumors which is not
something journalists worth their salt would do but this is what news
reporting has sunk to in this country.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.
True. Bob Woodward made a little noted comment a few months ago about how
too many reporters are allowing their emotions to affect their reporting.
They obviously detest Trump and allow that to influence their reporting.
They don't even try. It's absurd that CNN has someone like Jeffrey Toobin
on to report on legal matters. Sure, he's not a straight reporter; he's an
analyst but his bias is shocking.
But none of this excuses Trump's reckless statements and ugliness.
It's certainly true that networks spend what seems like an inordinate
amount of time covering Trump and his policies. But, can't you see that he
brings much of it upon himself with, as you say, "reckless statements and
ugliness"? How can the press ignore the behavior of a President of the
United States when it is so over-the-top, the likes of which we haven't
seen in our lifetime?
Sure, you can always find outrageous statements made by other presidents
but, with Trump, it's nearly a daily occurrence. He's so wrong about so
many things, and he says them in such an arrogant and self-serving way,
that the media would be remiss not to point it out. An when it IS pointed
out, the comeback always seems to be, "We have record low unemployment" -
as if his unpresidential and childish behavior is what is actually CAUSING
the economic cycle to continue on the upward trajectory that it was
already on when he took office. [The economic criticism of Obama was that,
during his watch, our nation experienced it's slowest recovery in its
history. Yet, almost everybody will agree that Obama inherited an economic
situation that was only rivaled by the Great Depression. It was called the
Great Recession. And it was! Yet, the economy continued to recover. As I
said before, that criticism is like saying, "That was the shortest home
run ever hit in this ballpark. Nobody has EVER hit a shorter home run than
that one."]
Trump is the one that keeps the media riveted to him - as if he's applying
the Hollywood dictum, "In show business, any news is good news. As long as
they're talking about it you - whether bad or good - at least you're
relevant."
And there's the not-so-insignificant matter about the possibility that the
Special Counsel could actually come up with something quite horrifying
with regards to Trump's (or his campaign's) dealings with a hostile
government. That remains to be seen. Apologists for Trump keep saying,
"There hasn't been a shred of evidence of collusion" as if they've already
read the final report from the Special Counsel. How can a Special Counsel,
investigating a sitting president, not be a HUGE news story that dominates
the news cycle, especially when there are constantly new developments?
If nothing else, it's pretty evident that Trump has surrounded himself
with a lot of shady people, quite a few of them seem to have an
inexplicable fascination with Russia. There's definitely smoke and it only
makes sense to see if there's fire.
The problem with all that the Trump campaign did in a desperate effort to
sweeten the pot is that they actually WON. Had they not won, I doubt
anybody would care about anything desperate they may have done in an
attempt to win. People would likely just shrug their shoulders and say,
"That's just Trump being Trump" - and life would go on. But he WON! And
that tends to put a microscope as to HOW you won.
So, the intense media coverage doesn't surprise me a bit. Although we
didn't have 24hr news cycles back in the Watergate era, it had the
equivalent level of coverage for that era ... and that didn't even involve
a hostile foreign power ... just a bunch of knuckleheads breaking into the
Democratic headquarters and attempts to obstruction that investigation at
the highest levels.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
It's not just the excessive coverage, it's the hysterical and overwrought
coverage.
You think that's warranted because, well, you hate Trump. Fine. I hate
what he does and how he acts. But the press isn't supposed to hate Trump
and they're not supposed to let their emotions - as Woodward said he sees
them doing - affect their coverage.
You cannot imagine how Trump can be unfairly covered. I disagree.
As I said, we should be able to balance several ideas in our heads. That
is, Trump is reckless and irresponsible AND the press coverage, while
warranted, has also been reckless and irresponsible.
I think the fact that the liberal/left has few or no complaints about the
critical coverage of Trump tells us something. The dog that didn't bark
sort of thing.
Funny how the Liberal/left press had no complaints about the critical
coverage of Hitler.
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
You mean the comedian? I haven't seen any serious person say that ALL
Republicans are conspiracy theorists. Maybe all Trump supporters.
Post by John McAdams
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
People who were later in the Trump campaign. PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE.
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
Not EVERYBODY. Just the important people. Not the secretaries and janitors.
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
Forget Collusion. The charge is Treason.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Overgeneralization. You are leaving out the Alex Joneses and JBS.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Where did they hide it?
Post by John McAdams
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
False. You may not realize it but you can approach the same facts from
opposite sides and come up with a conspiracy theory blaming the other
side.
Post by John McAdams
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-07 13:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Re the left/right: it depends on the conspiracy, doesn't it?

Large numbers of people on the left believe that Trump conspired with
Putin to steal the election; large numbers on the right believe that
elements of the Obama Administration and the "deep state" conspired to
promote/disseminate that false claim in order to undermine Trump's
presidency.

Two different conspiracies coming out of the same general event.

So, who are the conspiracists here?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Re the left/right: it depends on the conspiracy, doesn't it?
Large numbers of people on the left believe that Trump conspired with
Putin to steal the election; large numbers on the right believe that
elements of the Obama Administration and the "deep state" conspired to
promote/disseminate that false claim in order to undermine Trump's
presidency.
Two different conspiracies coming out of the same general event.
So, who are the conspiracists here?
Collusion or conspiracy is a human trait that they use when they see
the possibility of gain, or more security or other benefit. Working with
others is a natural result of need and survival. It is also natural then
for humans to consider that there was some collusion in some act or event
that occurred. That's one form of conspiracy belief. Another is that
humans like to hear of problems being had by others who might be doing
wrong, when it's not themselves. It means they are doing better than
someone else. That may not be the complete answer, but I welcome other
thoughts on it.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-07 13:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 22:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Maybe one is an R1 and the other is an R2?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
He gave legitimate examples of both left and right conspiracies. I
think his point is valid.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-07 14:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Thanks! Kind words indeed from the LN side.

I recommend the video to anyone that wants a good laugh!

But we need to add a category: Conspiracy Fact.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
YOU USED THE WORD BELIEF. NOW YOU BELIEVE THAT BELIEF IN CONSPIRACIES IS A
BELIEF. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY GENE. YOU JUST
DEBUNKED YOURSELF AGAIN EMERLING. BELIEFS IN CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY
GENES ARE NOT THE SAME.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 22:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
YOU USED THE WORD BELIEF. NOW YOU BELIEVE THAT BELIEF IN CONSPIRACIES IS A
BELIEF. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY GENE. YOU JUST
DEBUNKED YOURSELF AGAIN EMERLING. BELIEFS IN CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY
GENES ARE NOT THE SAME.
I think that was just a bad joke. No scientific evidence.
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I WATCHED IT AND BILL MAHER IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY FUNNY. HE SURE IS AN UGLY
MAN. BILL MAHER IS MORE VULGAR THAN YOU ARE MR. EMERLING. EMERLING, I
NEVER BOUGHT INTO YOUR HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE WRITING
STYLE. I READ DALE CARNEGIE'S BOOK TOO.IT'S A BOOK OF DECEPTION AND
INSINCERITY. I AM GOING TO KEEP WRITING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE IT DISTURBS
PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-07 14:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."

But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
I can help you there:

https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html

See table in the second link.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-06-09 01:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.

Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.

Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.

You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2018-06-09 18:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA, LA,
LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-10 18:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA, LA,
LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2018-06-11 02:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA,
LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
You da man when it comes to knowing about TVs, Anthony Anthony.
You da man.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-12 12:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:18:29 PM UTC-7,
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA,
LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
You da man when it comes to knowing about TVs, Anthony Anthony.
You da man.
At least I know how to change the channel!
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-10 00:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Ah, is there nowhere we can get the truth when these issues come up?
The LNs have an antenna for this stuff. They can always seem to tell when
'they all lied' or 'they all were mistaken'. Now even the fact checkers
can't be trusted.
Post by John McAdams
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
The use of opinions is done by both sides in these debates.
Post by John McAdams
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
We need to ask ourselves why Republicans are fact checked more often.
Are they doubted more often? Certainly Trump and his surrogates, like
Giuliani are. Hardly a day goes by that Trump doesn't lie, either in a
speech or a Tweet. He's still trying to get away with blaming democrats
for tearing babies away from their mothers coming over the border! And
blaming them for the DACA mess which Trump himself precipitated by killing
the order.

Sorry for the rant, I lose it now and then.
Post by John McAdams
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
Because 'they all lie' or deliver 'fake news'? The damage Trump has
done to our important heritage of free press by attacking them to try and
get himself off the dime with his crimes? The free press along with
honest voting are backbones of a solid democracy (or Republic, if you
like), and it will be years before they will be able to regain the
reputation they had.

I get my news from the "mainstream media organizations", and FOX News
can't compete with the level of honesty I get from those people. Chris
bigdog
2018-06-10 22:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Ah, is there nowhere we can get the truth when these issues come up?
The LNs have an antenna for this stuff. They can always seem to tell when
'they all lied' or 'they all were mistaken'. Now even the fact checkers
can't be trusted.
Who appointed these people to be fact checkers and how do you know you can
trust them? Oh, yeah. They have fact checker in their title. I guess
that's good enough.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
The use of opinions is done by both sides in these debates.
The trick is to separate fact from opinion. To do that you have to engage
your mind or you can take the easy way out and let the fact checkers tell
you what to think.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
We need to ask ourselves why Republicans are fact checked more often.
Gee, it couldn't be because the fact checkers are Democrats, could it?
Post by mainframetech
Are they doubted more often? Certainly Trump and his surrogates, like
Giuliani are. Hardly a day goes by that Trump doesn't lie, either in a
speech or a Tweet. He's still trying to get away with blaming democrats
for tearing babies away from their mothers coming over the border!
Democrats spent the 8 years of the Obama presidency blaming Bush43 for the
sluggish economy.
Post by mainframetech
And
blaming them for the DACA mess which Trump himself precipitated by killing
the order.
Sorry for the rant, I lose it now and then.
Gee, I hadn't noticed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
Because 'they all lie' or deliver 'fake news'? The damage Trump has
done to our important heritage of free press by attacking them to try and
get himself off the dime with his crimes?
Why do you think a free press should be immune from criticism?
Post by mainframetech
The free press along with
honest voting are backbones of a solid democracy (or Republic, if you
like), and it will be years before they will be able to regain the
reputation they had.
It is their fault their reputation is in the crapper. They chose to take
sides and become advocates instead of journalists. They will never regain
their reputation until they realize that true journalism is reporting
facts, not trying to sway the public to your way of thinking. They deserve
the low regard in which they are held.
Post by mainframetech
I get my news from the "mainstream media organizations", and FOX News
can't compete with the level of honesty I get from those people.
Honesty? From who? CNN? MSNBC? The NYT? The Washington Compost? Are you
trying to be funny?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-10 22:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
You really should not be attacking Freedom of the Press just to support
your buddy Trump. Some day even you might need to depend on the First
Amendment
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BILL MAHER SAID THE FOLLOWING IN 2017:

Can I put this in perspective? When Kennedy was President, he wasn't
f***ing around with the Russians, but he was f***ing around. The
intelligence agencies -- we don't know what happened to Jack Kennedy, but
that was one theory because they couldn't trust him because he was f***ing
East German spies and mafia couriers. And they were like, "This guy has a
p**** problem, and this cannot stand. He is too much of a danger to
America."
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:22:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
Most people at Cornell bought/sold/used marijuana.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-10 18:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
Most people at Cornell bought/sold/used marijuana.
Chris
THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE MEN ON THE 7TH FLOOR?
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BILL MAHER IS A RACIST. READ THIS:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jun/03/bill-maher-hbo-real-time-ben-sasse
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2013/02/06/donald-trump-sues-bill-maher-for-calling-him-the-son-of-an-orangutan/&refURL=https://en.wikipedia.org/&referrer=https://en.wikipedia.org/
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
WHAT IS YOUR STUDY BASED ON? SHOW ME THE STATS.
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I DON'T GET IT. YOU ARE NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST YET YOU ARE SAYING THAT
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE MORE OPEN MINDED? YOU KEEP CONTRADICTING
YOURSELF.
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
ACCORDING TO DAVID EMERLING: It's a gene! Those who find themselves
inexplicably attracted to all these outrageous conspiracy theories have
this gene.

THE TITLE OF YOUR POST 'Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a
left/right issue? ARE YOU NOW ADMITTING THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY GENE?
YOU REFER TO CONSPIRACIES AS A BELIEF IN THE ABOVE POST.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 14:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
ACCORDING TO DAVID EMERLING: It's a gene! Those who find themselves
I think he was joking.
Post by BOZ
inexplicably attracted to all these outrageous conspiracy theories have
this gene.
THE TITLE OF YOUR POST 'Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a
left/right issue? ARE YOU NOW ADMITTING THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY GENE?
YOU REFER TO CONSPIRACIES AS A BELIEF IN THE ABOVE POST.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
PS I don't believe in your post.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
False dichotomy. Many Republicans are conspiracy theorists.
Especially Trump and his followers.
Breakfast with Oswald?
bigdog
2018-06-08 01:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 14:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-10 18:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
The only thing that proves is that didn't have as good of lawyers as
Hillary.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 14:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
The only thing that proves is that didn't have as good of lawyers as
Hillary.
So, you are just another know nothing WC defender who can't answer my
questions.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 02:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.

Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump. Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.

I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.

Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-12 02:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.
Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump.
You haven't been following my discussions with Chris. While not stating it
happened, he has strongly suggested it is a possibility.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.
Given the margins Trump won the key blue wall states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin by, it's hard to believe Russian influence made a
significant difference anywhere. They have been trying to influence our
elections for a long time and we have tried to influence theirs, both
efforts being rather feeble. I don't think the Russians were trying to
help Trump win. They thought like everyone else that Hillary was going to
win and they wanted her to be a weakened president.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.
Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.
I haven't heard Schumer or Pelosi scoffing at some of the wackier liberal
conspiracy theories.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 00:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.
Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump.
You haven't been following my discussions with Chris. While not stating it
happened, he has strongly suggested it is a possibility.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.
Given the margins Trump won the key blue wall states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin by, it's hard to believe Russian influence made a
significant difference anywhere. They have been trying to influence our
elections for a long time and we have tried to influence theirs, both
efforts being rather feeble. I don't think the Russians were trying to
help Trump win. They thought like everyone else that Hillary was going to
win and they wanted her to be a weakened president.
Overgeneralization. We are talking about a few thousand votes to flip in
only a few key states.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.
Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.
I haven't heard Schumer or Pelosi scoffing at some of the wackier liberal
conspiracy theories.
Ace Kefford
2018-06-12 02:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.

But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while. Now it's even worse because the man
they have almost all accepted as their exalted leader believes in and
regularly repeats or in his mode of communication re-tweets conspiracy
nonsense.

Certainly a lot of elected Republicans now traffic in conspiracy theories.
John McAdams
2018-06-12 02:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while.
Let's see: who rejects the science on . . .

Fracking
GMOs
Nuclear Power
X and Y chromosones

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 19:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while.
Let's see: who rejects the science on . . .
Fracking
GMOs
Nuclear Power
X and Y chromosones
Do we really need to take a poll or isn't is obvious?
Please tell us more about XYY.
Is it a legacy from Bigfoot?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-12 02:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while. Now it's even worse because the man
they have almost all accepted as their exalted leader believes in and
regularly repeats or in his mode of communication re-tweets conspiracy
nonsense.
Certainly a lot of elected Republicans now traffic in conspiracy theories.
You need to read this:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-06-12 12:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.

So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.

Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.

Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
claviger
2018-06-14 14:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?

Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.

No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-15 01:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
JFK didn't cut income taxes while in office. He *proposed* a reduction but
the bill to do so was still in the House when he was assassinated.

He *did* cut the capital gains tax rate however. That WAS passed by
Congress.

So I think it'd be more accurate to say he proposed cutting the income tax
rate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
JFK didn't cut income taxes while in office. He *proposed* a reduction but
the bill to do so was still in the House when he was assassinated.
He *did* cut the capital gains tax rate however. That WAS passed by
Congress.
So I think it'd be more accurate to say he proposed cutting the income tax
rate.
A+
How about filing the bill?
claviger
2018-06-15 01:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina said Nixon was one of the names on LHO enemies list.
He was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but she locked LHO in
the bathroom and probably saved Nixon's life.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 01:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
You come from a different umiverse.
Post by claviger
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Yes. Wanted to stalk is different from stalked. Learn English.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Stop the hate. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Post by claviger
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
LBJ didn't get a chance to cut taxes, He only proposed it, but they
killed him before he could do it.
LBJ got JFK's bill passed.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Get out of here. That is too intellectual a question to ask here.
Try the Nuthouse.
claviger
2018-06-16 05:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
You come from a different umiverse.
I have nothing to do with the MIT Sustainable Design Lab.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Yes. Wanted to stalk is different from stalked. Learn English.
He was taking note of Nixon's agenda in Dallas. Another way
to put it LHO was watching Nixons movements while in Dallas.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Stop the hate. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Old saying in politics: "Run Liberal but Govern from the Middle."
JFK's father was a very successful businessman. Joe Jr took after
his father and so did JFK. No Liberal would propose a major tax cut
his first term in officer as President. That was a very bold move by
JFK and he didn't like deficits either.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
LBJ didn't get a chance to cut taxes, He only proposed it, but they
killed him before he could do it.
So Liberals ambushed JFK to stop those tax cuts?
Post by Anthony Marsh
LBJ got JFK's bill passed.
He sure did, then boldly adopted deficit spending as the norm.
That would have been anathema to JFK.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Get out of here. That is too intellectual a question to ask here.
Try the Nuthouse.
LHO and Delgado had talked about going to Cuba and joining
Castro after their tour of duty with USMC was over.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Files on Lee Harvey Oswald
10 posts by 3 authors
claviger
2018-06-15 00:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Marina was aware he was stalking Nixon and locked LHO in the bathroom.
She may have saved Nixon's life.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
No that was your idea. Did you volunteer to drive him there?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
LBJ was a Liberal who did everything opposite of JFK.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Marina was aware he was stalking Nixon and locked LHO in the bathroom.
She may have saved Nixon's life.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
No that was your idea. Did you volunteer to drive him there?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
LBJ was a Liberal who did everything opposite of JFK.
Ignorant. LBJ got JFK's programs passed.

The First 100 Days: Lyndon Johnson Fulfilled Kennedy's Legacy

Johnson wanted to assure the country that he would carryout the policies
of his predecessor.
By Kenneth T. Walsh, Contributor???March 5, 2009, at 12:00 p.m.
More
U.S. News & World Report

The First 100 Days: Lyndon Johnson
More

It's not a perfect measure, but it's a useful one???the 100-day standard
for gauging presidential effectiveness. The underlying truth is that
presidents tend to be most effective when they first take office, when
their leadership style seems fresh and new, when the aura of victory is
still powerful, and when their impact on Congress is usually at its
height. There is nothing magic about the number, and many presidential
aides over the years have complained that it is an artificial yardstick.
But it has been used by the public, the media, and scholars as a gauge of
presidential success and activism since Franklin D. Roosevelt pioneered
the 100-day concept when he took office in 1933. He was faced with the
calamity of the Depression???and he moved with unprecedented dispatch to
address the problem. "The first hundred days of the New Deal have served
as a model for future presidents of bold leadership and
executive-legislative harmony," writes Cambridge University historian
Anthony Badger in "FDR: The First Hundred Days." In this series, U.S. News
looks at the most far-reaching 100-day periods in presidential history,
starting with FDR. The series will run each week on Thursdays.

Lyndon B. Johnson had a specific objective in mind that guided his
presidency from the start???to out-do Franklin D. Roosevelt as the
champion of everyday Americans. LBJ got off to a fast start, but the very
traits that made his presidency so promising in the beginning???his big
ideas and ability to bend Congress to his will???proved to be the seeds of
his political destruction.

[

READ MORE: Presidents' First 100 Days ]

"Throughout his presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson consistently measured his
record against that of his political hero, FDR," writes Cambridge
University historian Anthony Badger in "FDR: The First Hundred Days." "In
April 1965 he pressed his congressional liaison man, Larry O'Brien, to
'jerk out every damn little bill you can and get them down here by the
12th' because 'on the 12th you'll have the best Hundred Days. Better than
he [FDR] did!"

That was actually after Johnson had been elected to a full term in his own
right, in 1964, but it demonstrated his mindset. Johnson, serving as John
F. Kennedy's vice president, actually had come into office by succession
after Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. He sought to capitalize
on the Kennedy's murder by moving swiftly to continue Kennedy's legacy. He
immediately pushed Congress to pass Kennedy's agenda to honor the martyred
president but also by moving far beyond it and expanding federal power
more than any president had done before, even Roosevelt.

"Johnson believed that in the months after the assassination he needed to
link himself to the deceased president, who seemed to become more popular
after his death," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "And he used
that connection to build popular support for his bills. That is why
Johnson retained the services of many Cabinet officials from the Kennedy
administration."

In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Nov. 27, 1963, five
days after the assassination, Johnson asked for support in completing
Kennedy's stalled agenda. He hailed Kennedy as "the greatest leader of our
time" and said, "Let us begin. Let us continue."

He didn't match FDR in his legislative success during his first 100 days
in 1963, but eventually he exceeded Roosevelt in the extent to which he
expanded federal power in society. He also won a massive landslide in his
1964 campaign, which LBJ felt vindicated his leadership.

In those first days in 1963, he succeeded in the all-important goal of
boosting the nation's confidence. "By contrast with Mr. Obama," wrote
historian Robert Dallek in the New York Times Jan. 23, 2009, "Johnson had
no mandate to govern except for being vice president. No one expected a
Southern politician to suddenly replace the youngest man ever elected to
the White House. . . . Johnson understood that his greatest initial
challenge was to provide reassurance???to convince not just Americans but
people around the world, who looked to the United States for leadership in
the cold war, that he could measure up to the standard JFK had set as an
effective president at home and abroad."

Johnson had been a consummate legislative deal maker before Kennedy chose
him to balance the ticket as his vice presidential running mate in 1960.
But Johnson, a longtime senator from Texas, was never a member of
Kennedy's inner circle. Many liberal Democrats were skeptical of him as a
Southerner and Washington operator when he succeeded Kennedy. But Johnson
"was able to turn the country's grief into a commitment to a moral
crusade," presidential scholar Jeffrey Tulis has written. It took him
longer than 100 days, but he set Congress on the path to passing the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as well as a tax cut and Medicare. Actually, he sought
to pass more legislation, help more people, lift more Americans out of
poverty, and become more of a historic figure than FDR. And in some ways
he succeeded, under a program he called the Great Society.

"In many ways Johnson was inadequate to the demands of the modern
presidency, especially as a public educator," wrote political scientists
Sidney Milkis and Michael Nelson in "The American Presidency: Origins &
Development 1776-1998." "Unlike other twentieth-century presidents who
wanted to remake the nation, LBJ neglected, even scorned, the 'bully
pulpit.' Yet Johnson profoundly influenced the modern presidency in other
ways. He more than maintained the power and independence of the executive
office. Regrettably, his failings also brought into serious question???for
the first time since the 1930s???the widespread assumption that the
national interest is served whenever the president dominates the affairs
of state. The disillusionment with executive power that commenced late in
Johnson's tenure actually began to unravel some of the conditions that had
given rise to the modern presidency."

As the Vietnam War escalated, with soaring costs in lives and resources,
and as the nation's domestic divisions intensified over Johnson's
ambitious social programs, the president's popularity sank. He declined to
run for re-election in 1968 and left office a very unpopular man.

But in the beginning, he seemed to be a force of nature. In an interview
with three network television journalists March 15, 1964, Johnson assessed
his first 100 days. "The first priority," he said, "was to try to display
to the world that we could have continuity and transition, that the
program of President Kennedy would be carried on, that there was no need
for them to be disturbed and fearful that our constitutional system had
been endangered. To demonstrate to the people of this country that
although their leader had fallen, and we had a new president, that we must
have unity and we must close ranks, and we must work together for the good
of all America and the world."

Johnson accomplished those initial goals admirably well.

Kenneth T. Walsh, Contributor

Ken Walsh covers the White House and politics for U.S. News. He writes
the daily blog "Ken Wal... READ MORE ??

Tags: John F. Kennedy, Vice President, President, Lyndon Johnson
Loading...