Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75 · 27-12-2018 09:43PM

PropJoe10 wrote: »

It was at over 6,500 false or misleading statements at the start of November. I'd say we're rocking well over 7k at this stage.

Over 7.5k at last count

27-12-2018 09:47PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I honestly don't think so. The posts from this user and in particular his use of language that wouldn't look out of place in r/the_donald suggest that he is deliberately misinforming himself to own the libs. He most likely has no idea of what is actually happening, including the profits being delivered by Mueller.

Or more likely he's just a troll.

pearcider · 27-12-2018 10:40PM

everlast75 wrote: »

"During the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, the leaders of the conservative news outlet Washington Free Beacon hired a private intelligence company, Fusion GPS, to conduct research into the candidates, including Trump. Early in the year, the Free Beacon's interest in the work lapsed. So by "early March," Fusion GPS approached the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee, offering to continue its investigations into Trump. In April, the law firm agreed, and it began to underwrite the investigation."

So, it was initially funded by the Republicans. Trump supporters seem to always leave that bit out for some reason.

Secondly, keep using nicknames (And lame ones at that) will not endear you to the mods. I'd like you to stick around if you're intent of properly engaging. Heaven knows, Trump supporters at this stage of his admin are fairly thin on the ground.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. My point still stands. The Russia allegations are codwollop. Invented for use in the dirty game of American Presidential politics. Clearly I am aware the republican establishment didn’t want him elected either. That just makes his election even more amazing and an even bigger up yours to the establishment. Trump is a man of the people.

pearcider · 27-12-2018 10:42PM

dinorebel wrote: »

It's actually been pretty short for a Special Counsel investigation, but you knew that anyway.

Well we’re still waiting. Let’s reserve judgement shall we. They tried to take down kavanagh nomination with utter lies and Trump overcame that too. Nothing the establishment throws at him
Is sticking. It’s wonderful to watch.

Water John · 27-12-2018 10:44PM

Well you know the problem with drinking pear cider? It give you lots of flatulence.

26000 Elephants · 27-12-2018 10:48PM

everlast75 wrote: »

So, it was initially funded by the Republicans. Trump supporters seem to always leave that bit out for some reason.

The real comedy gold is the standard 4chan counter to this reality: "durr durr, The Beacon got a completely different report that what the Dems got!". As if that actually means anything. GPS handed them a damning report, but they only used what they wanted. The remainder was offered to the Democrats. How any rational human being fails to see how these things work is beyond me.

26000 Elephants · 27-12-2018 10:56PM

Michael "It wasn't me, Guv!" Cohen playing semantics?

https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1078400493494390784

Itssoeasy · 27-12-2018 11:15PM

pearcider wrote: »

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. My point still stands. The Russia allegations are codwollop. Invented for use in the dirty game of American Presidential politics. Clearly I am aware the republican establishment didn’t want him elected either. That just makes his election even more amazing and an even bigger up yours to the establishment. Trump is a man of the people.

No it doesn't. How ? By what available metric is Donald Trump a man of the people ?

pearcider · 27-12-2018 11:25PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No it doesn't. How ? By what available metric is Donald Trump a man of the people ?

My point stands in relation to muellers phony investigation.

On an entirely separate point, he’s a man of the people because that’s who voted for him.

Thepoet85 · 27-12-2018 11:27PM

pearcider wrote:

On an entirely separate point, heâ€™s a man of the people because thatâ€™s who voted for him.

Obvious trolling at this stage.

relax carry on · 27-12-2018 11:32PM

pearcider wrote: »

My point stands in relation to muellers phony investigation.

On an entirely separate point, he’s a man of the people because that’s who voted for him.

You are either full Trump which means even when all his dealings are exposed you still won't believe it or you're trolling.

Itssoeasy · 28-12-2018 12:00AM

pearcider wrote: »

My point stands in relation to muellers phony investigation.

On an entirely separate point, he’s a man of the people because that’s who voted for him.

Your point can stand all it likes, the fact is it's wrong.

That's not really the definition of a man of the people. In that case every elected politician is a man/woman of the people.

blackcard · 28-12-2018 12:02AM

pearcider wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No it doesn't. How ? By what available metric is Donald Trump a man of the people ?

My point stands in relation to muellers phony investigation.

On an entirely separate point, he’s a man of the people because that’s who voted for him.

More people voted for Hilary

pearcider · 28-12-2018 12:04AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Your point can stand all it likes, the fact is it's wrong.

That's not really the definition of a man of the people. In that case every elected politician is a man/woman of the people.

My point stands was in relation to the phony mueller investigation which is my point. The feds all hate trump because he threatens the status quo. The strozk case showed that clearly. They should be done for treason imo. Something is rotten in the deep state that’s for sure.

Itssoeasy · 28-12-2018 12:07AM

pearcider wrote: »

My point stands was in relation to the phony mueller investigation which is my point. The feds all hate trump because he threatens the status quo. The strozk case showed that clearly. They should be done for treason imo. Something is rotten in the deep state that’s for sure.

Phony ? The investigation was started by Trump's own justice department. The Strozk case showed that FBI agents have political opinions just like every other american.

Itssoeasy · 28-12-2018 12:10AM

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Tell me pearcider which part of the treason definition did anyone break ?

duploelabs · 28-12-2018 12:31AM

pearcider wrote: »

My point stands was in relation to the phony mueller investigation which is my point. The feds all hate trump because he threatens the status quo. The strozk case showed that clearly. They should be done for treason imo. Something is rotten in the deep state that’s for sure.

So you're doubting the judiciary now that those convictions have been granted by the Mueller investigation?
First it's the press, then it's the judiciary, once those pillars are attacked then things start walking like a duck and talking like a duck. And that should never happen

PopePalpatine · 28-12-2018 12:35AM

I don't blame the FBI for disliking a fraudster.

everlast75 · 28-12-2018 12:55AM

Pearcider - let's reserve judgement on the investigation

Also Peadcider - the investigation is phony.

I'm out.

prawnsambo · 28-12-2018 10:52AM

pearcider wrote: »

Sorry he’s not a member of the globalist elite who attend Davos etc that preach to the middle class in the west about how horrible and polluting they are and why this they have to shoulder all the tax burden of bailing out the banks and corporations every few years while they hide their own wealth off shore. The same elites who sold out the American and European worker to communist China and Vietnam and use the biggest con ever called globalisation to undercut our wages. The same elites who constantly push for war with nuclear armed Russia. The elites that own most of the media in the west and vilify Trump on a daily basis. The same elites who have destroyed the jewel of western civilization our universities by attacking free speech in them and filling them with rich foreign students who lower standards while raising fees on their own citizens. The same elites who constantly push for expanding the welfare state (without paying for it) and the states influence. The nanny staters and the PC brigade. The elites who want open borders and illegal immigration so they can further depress wages. The same elites that fill our schools and hospitals with uneducated third world immigrants who have no right to be here but they keep their kids in private schools and pay for private hospitals. Hypocrites. The elites that both Clinton and Bush and Obama were slaves to. Trump has gone to war with them and I just hope he keeps going.

This is just nonsense from start to finish. And hugely contradictory. The same people who push for action against climate change are pushing for war with Russia? And "rich foreign students lowering standards while raising fees"? How is that supposed to work? The opposite is actually true. Foreign students help keep fees low by subsidising the local students.

And then there's the peach about the wealthy not paying for the welfare state. Well d'uh that's exactly what Trump is doing with his tax cuts for the rich. In fact the above could be read as a diatribe against Trump, bar the climate change one. Because Trump doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Leroy42 · 28-12-2018 10:59AM

This Fake News that keeps being mentioned, it is taken as a given it seems.

We know that Trump has lied +7000 times since becoming POTUS so it is easily shown that he is a massive source of fakery (is that a word?).

So those that believe that the whole media is fake, care to provide the evidence to back up that claim? Bearing in mind that in some of the most major stories such as Daniels, McDougal, Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Tower Moscow, Cohen selling access, Flynn lying, Sessions meeting the Russians, people leaving the WH etc, that the media have been proven to be right on the overall if not, unsurprisingly, the specifics.

It just seems to me that many people just accept that the media is 'fake' without ever being able to put any actual evidence to back up that claim.

jjpep · 28-12-2018 11:15AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

This Fake News that keeps being mentioned, it is taken as a given it seems.

We know that Trump has lied +7000 times since becoming POTUS so it is easily shown that he is a massive source of fakery (is that a word?).

So those that believe that the whole media is fake, care to provide the evidence to back up that claim? Bearing in mind that in some of the most major stories such as Daniels, McDougal, Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Tower Moscow, Cohen selling access, Flynn lying, Sessions meeting the Russians, people leaving the WH etc, that the media have been proven to be right on the overall if not, unsurprisingly, the specifics.

It just seems to me that many people just accept that the media is 'fake' without ever being able to put any actual evidence to back up that claim.

I remember being told in english class in secondary school that news outlets all had different agendas as they were all aimed at different segments of the market. The example we were shown was a Sun headline published in the UK about letting the SAS take the gloves off and go over the Irish border to sort out the IRA. The issue of the Sun published in Ireland that day ran with a different front page article and that article about the SAS being pushed back a number of pages and having a different headline and opening paragraph. The crux of the lesson was that you can't get a full or honest picture from any one news organisation. If you really were interested in current events you needed to read many sources.

Point is, the idea of biased reporting is a known thing and has been for a long time (its over 25 years ago that I was in secondary school). Trump has given it a new name and with used it in a typical Trump way ie. 100% hyperbole and with 0% nuance. And his followers use the term in the same way. TBH its one of those phrases that when I hear or read it I assume that whatever is being said is going to be of little value.

listermint · 28-12-2018 11:41AM

jjpep wrote: »

I remember being told in english class in secondary school that news outlets all had different agendas as they were all aimed at different segments of the market. The example we were shown was a Sun headline published in the UK about letting the SAS take the gloves off and go over the Irish border to sort out the IRA. The issue of the Sun published in Ireland that day ran with a different front page article and that article about the SAS being pushed back a number of pages and having a different headline and opening paragraph. The crux of the lesson was that you can't get a full or honest picture from any one news organisation. If you really were interested in current events you needed to read many sources.

Point is, the idea of biased reporting is a known thing and has been for a long time (its over 25 years ago that I was in secondary school). Trump has given it a new name and with used it in a typical Trump way ie. 100% hyperbole and with 0% nuance. And his followers use the term in the same way. TBH its one of those phrases that when I hear or read it I assume that whatever is being said is going to be of little value.

Erm... Just to quantify your example.

That is not an example of 'news' or fake news or factual news.

Its an opinion piece about letting the SAS over the border and take the gloves off and reasons for it.

News would be an SAS squad has been deployed south of the border with a view to impacting operations of X group.

An opinion piece would be discussing the merits of such an action. So the point your were trying to make is somewhat diluted.

volchitsa · 28-12-2018 11:45AM

listermint wrote: »

Erm... Just to quantify your example.

That is not an example of 'news' or fake news or factual news.

Its an opinion piece about letting the SAS over the border and take the gloves off and reasons for it.

News would be an SAS squad has been deployed south of the border with a view to impacting operations of X group.

An opinion piece would be discussing the merits of such an action. So the point your were trying to make is somewhat diluted.

Much of that whole "fake news" claim is based on the fact that a surprising number of people don't understand the difference between opinion pieces and actual news, like the poster you replied to.

jjpep · 28-12-2018 12:06PM

listermint wrote: »

Erm... Just to quantify your example.

That is not an example of 'news' or fake news or factual news.

Its an opinion piece about letting the SAS over the border and take the gloves off and reasons for it.

News would be an SAS squad has been deployed south of the border with a view to impacting operations of X group.

An opinion piece would be discussing the merits of such an action. So the point your were trying to make is somewhat diluted.

I get your point but I would argue that all news is delivered through the prism of opinion. Delivery and context of how that information is given has a huge effect on how that information is received. Some links to examples:

http://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/evaluate/bias
https://pudding.cool/2018/01/chyrons/

The second link doesn't differentiate between opinion and news from the three mentioned networks - but this is arguably because they don't make much of a differentiation either.

listermint · 28-12-2018 12:10PM

jjpep wrote: »

I get your point but I would argue that all news is delivered through the prism of opinion. Delivery and context of how that information is given has a huge effect on how that information is received. Some links to examples:

http://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/evaluate/bias
https://pudding.cool/2018/01/chyrons/

The second link doesn't differentiate between opinion and news from the three mentioned networks - but this is arguably because they don't make much of a differentiation either.

No there is no argument, here. You have factual news delivered it can be flavoured in such a format to give a context that the deliverer may want but the core point is factual.

Then there is pure opinion pieces. Such as your original article in the Sun. Its not even required thought to see its an opinion piece as its framed in a 'what if' and 'should' rather than an even that occurred.

The lines are blurred between the two because the reader wants them to be. Confirmation Bias.

everlast75 · 28-12-2018 12:19PM

If 15 outlets report one story and Trump or fox reports a contrasting view, I will go with the 15 outlets thanks.

Trump has been proven to lie over 7.5k times, and Fox clearly delivers more opinion than facts, so I put little stock in what they say.

However, I do possess critical thinking and I can spot if CNN or NBC are over-egging a story, and I switch off.

If Trump supporters managed some critical thinking the world would be in a much better place...

jjpep · 28-12-2018 12:28PM

listermint wrote: »

No there is no argument, here. You have factual news delivered it can be flavoured in such a format to give a context that the deliverer may want but the core point is factual.

Then there is pure opinion pieces. Such as your original article in the Sun. Its not even required thought to see its an opinion piece as its framed in a 'what if' and 'should' rather than an even that occurred.

The lines are blurred between the two because the reader wants them to be. Confirmation Bias.

Respectfully I will still have to disagree with you about their being a clear line between the two (although I do wish I had picked a better initial example). The lines between factual reporting and opinion are so blurred as to be non-existent in many cases. Opinion pieces also do need a grounding in fact but again can be incredibly contorted.

More examples of the same basic facts but being delivered in very different ways:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/08/03/158068749/same-news-different-spins-check-these-headlines-about-the-jobs-report

The above I think is pretty extreme. Below you can see current stories:

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

Of course, these are media organisations reporting on the bias's of media organisations - when its fair to assume that they will also have their own bias's....

listermint · 28-12-2018 12:31PM

jjpep wrote: »

Respectfully I will still have to disagree with you about their being a clear line between the two (although I do wish I had picked a better initial example). The lines between factual reporting and opinion are so blurred as to be non-existent in many cases. Opinion pieces also do need a grounding in fact but again can be incredibly contorted.

More examples of the same basic facts but being delivered in very different ways:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/08/03/158068749/same-news-different-spins-check-these-headlines-about-the-jobs-report

The above I think is pretty extreme. Below you can see current stories:

https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news

Of course, these are media organisations reporting on the bias's of media organisations - when its fair to assume that they will also have their own bias's....

these are not conventional media organisations nor where the links you posted in your previous post.

So respectfully , you are providing increasingly poor material to support your points.

jjpep · 28-12-2018 12:45PM

listermint wrote: »

these are not conventional media organisations nor where the links you posted in your previous post.

So respectfully , you are providing increasingly poor material to support your points.

You asked was the idea of fake media ever challenged. My response/argument was that there was always been a bias to media outlets but the charge by Trump (and his supporters) of fake media was 100% hyperbole and 0% nuance. I've provided links showing how the same stories were reported in different ways by different news organisations.

What is your position?

Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Comments