Total posts: 1,080
-->
@DBlaze
Uh.. you don't think such statements are somewhat hyperbolic?
Obviously the liberal congress would rather not *want* the illegal immigrants to continue, and yet the wall is a costly and ineffective solution.
You speak as if no id voting is bad, however evidence suggests there are mostly negatives associated with implementing strict voting id laws with there being little positives
And obviously them building the government towards communism is complete twaddle
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
I mean.. what's your objection to a poll such as this one? https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2590
Logically it follows that given that the majority did not vote for Trump, the majority will also not be in favour of his wall
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
Do you have an link on Mexican crime rate in America statistics? Googling "mexican crime rates in america statistics" seems to give articles that say that immigrants cause less crime than natural born citizens. Or variants thereof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I see there's been some confusion. So from the PDF that I linked, on page 135, what you quoted had no relevance to Dershowitz's argument and was not what I intended you to read. That's why it read "conspiracy charge" rather than "obstruction charge" or similar. What I wanted you to read was the subsection that started on that page.
At any-rate the point I'm making is that Dershowitz's opinion is not a legal consensus, and that from a legal standpoint there is a good case to be made that Comey's firing was obstruction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Slide your gaze downwards on the page for the reply to Dershowitz's argument. You've read something unrelated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There you go. The case for obstruction starts at page 85. A reply to Dershowitz's argument is at page 135
Created:
Posted in:
It was already obstruction when he fired Comey.
"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job."
"I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off"
"When I decided [to fire Comey], I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story"
I don't know how you could interpret this in any otherway
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Your take on North American "slavery" is shallow, and therefore misses some important nuance. In practice, these "slaves" were essentially serfs or peasants. ~
Well that's certainly an interesting take on American slavery.
You're right, you haven't the slightest idea. You just regurgitate the brainwashing that left your brain squeaky clean. You just take the ignorant "why not?" approach, hoping for good results. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important.I've already written a thread on how racial groups differ at the genetic level, and not just the "physical level" (wow, great term. It's not nebulous at all!).
You have a great gift for pulling red herrings out of your ass and slathering them all over my screen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Yeah, because civilising America was a breeze for whites
Well, being kidnapped, enslaved and then segregated/discriminated against is a fairly high bar to match.
That, and I'm not sure how prideful one should be when colonisation essentially amounts to invasion
Do you honestly believe that a multi-racial society is optimal for a nation?
You know, I haven't the slightest idea. But I can't see the harm in a 50/50 black/white society split given the only difference being physical characteristics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
I feel like you're glossing over some aspects of what you describe as anti-white sentiment. For example, black pride is a celebration of the challenges and oppression that black people in American society have overcome. White people in America in general have never faced the same adversity or challenges in comparison as a whole.
National hispanic month in the same vein is an acknowledgement of hispanic contribution to American culture as a minority.
So exactly does white pride celebrate? Simply being white? That seems rather frivolous and flippant to what other groups are celebrating to me. Now if you were to celebrate your cultural background, that'd be perfectly fine. And this is currently done in bastille day/independence day/st patricks etc etc.
As for being criticised for being a white dominant group, is it anti-white to recognise that a homogenous group in defiance of country demographics is problematical? Either other races don't wish to join in which case there's an image problem or candidates of other races are being rejected in greater frequency, in which case there is contribution to racial inequality
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you have an example where "many" leftists have advocated for calling the police in the case of a home invasion? This seems like an imaginary boogeyman that gun advocates have conjured up, hence why it sounds so absurd.
Created:
Exactly who are the leftists who would rather wait and call the police despite having a gun in the case of a home invasion? That seems like a colossal mischaracterisation
Created:
Lol. It's understandable that you wish to forget that crushing election.
There were no fake polls as you have conceded by providing no evidence of fake polls.
They will tell you that Trump won. Your nightmare is reality. Wake up.
There were no fake polls as you have conceded by providing no evidence of fake polls.
Yes. Neither of which is determined by you. You thinking he was not qualified does not mean he is not qualified. Reality does not reside between your ears.
Both of which are determined by opinions which everyone has and applies
Stop asking silly irrelevant questions. People more knowledgeable than you, both of law and of Kavenaugh, felt the judge was qualified and suitable. Your Trump hatred has made you illogical.
People more knowledgeable than you, both of law and of Kavanaugh felt the judge was unqualified and unsuitable. Your Trump-boner has made you illogical
Then stop asking me to accept your position.
I never asked for you to accept my position.
True, it would hamper your back peddling.
Or rather in this case it would be an exercise in futility
If you didn't need me to accept them, you would not have asked me to, and would have said "no" when I asked you.
If I needed you to accept them I would've stopped at the first case when it became obvious irrationality defines your thinking and is not subject to change
Stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep waiting.
Delusion is a belief held despite reality or argument
Which is why I don't keep repeating the obvious. "Mirror" talk makes little sense if inverting the argument makes you wrong. But as you've run out of anything sensible to say, carry on.
Mirror talk seems like a suitable response to responses of little substance. But by all means if you wish to continue, carry on
If your loony liberal logic tells you that keeping terrorists out of America is racist, knock yourself out.
So it is racist?
Lol, my posts can say nothing about your crippled thinking except to point it out. Your posts scream out your loony crippled thinking.But as you said, you liberals are many. Take solace in that you are not alone in your mental handicap.
They also highlight your inability to accept contrary views despite given evidence. I can only assume this is an example of your "loony crippled thinking"
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Abject denials do not make reality false. Regardless, sources please?Untrue.
You get it. The fake polls said crooked Hillery would win in a landslide. Trump won. Don't be mad bro.
There were no fake polls as you have conceded by providing no evidence of fake polls.
Maybe you should send a complaint to the election commission.
What does the election commission have to do with you twisting truth?
Here. "America should have the best of the best, which he is clearly not."
Do you understand the differences between the concept of suitability and being qualified?
Lol. He's a Judge now. You lack sense.
Kavanaugh being criticised and Kavanaugh being confirmed as a judge are mutually independent events. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Your poor thinking is not my concern.
Your poor thinking is not my concern either.
No explanation needed either apparently. You backpedal like an Olympian.
Explanations should be given when an attempt to understand has already been made, and when the answer wouldn't be utterly wasted. It would be silly to give an explanation in this case
Not the "reality" between your ears no.
Your denials do not make reality false.
Nah, I think I got it. They don't call you snowflakes for your ability to stand heat.
False. Try again.
Do you wish me to accept them?
Have you a need to accept them?
Lol. You do wish me to accept them.
Your imaginations of what you read in my posts does not make reality true
OK, whomever "tacitly" accepted your nonsense will address it.
Great, I'll be waiting for your addressing
We know you think so.
We know you don't think so
You want me to tell you how keeping terrorists out of America is good? Sorry, Ethan doesn't do stupid. Unlike you, I don't need you to accept anything.
That seems racist. Are you racist?
Would that you had followed that advice before you posted.
Oh indeed? What have I said that is misleading?
Accurate and objective representations are not hard to express. Your bias has crippled your thinking.
Now you say that, but your posts do say otherwise
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Not in my post.
You've even copied the hyper-link in your replying comment. Regardless, sources?
Thanks, but that is what we were talking about.
I know in conservative land, saying "Trump won" is sufficient to waive all arguments and criticisms, however in reality this is not the case.
I know you think so. The country stood by mouths agape at how liberals did not know what due process was. Thanks for the confirmation.
The country stood by, mouths agape at how the conservatives have once again twisted any semblance of truth
Enough to know Kavenaugh was extremely qualified, lauded by other legal professionals, and admired for his body of published works and work ethic. You the lefty liberal thinks he was "clearly" unqualified. Why? Because when you dragged him and his family through the mud, he fought back! Lol.
When did I say he was unqualified? Don't place words in my mouth. Kavanaugh was extremely qualified. However he was also criticised by other legal professionals which you seem to have ignored. That and of course he lacks decorum.
They weren't. You think controversial means what you find distasteful.
And you seem to think that they aren't controversial based on nothing but your own subjective opinion
You backpeddle like a champ.
No backpedaling needed when you've hideously misread something
And then you woke up. Calling it nepotism is not showing it to be nepotism.
Your denials do not make reality false.
You are a pinko leftist liberal. Everything triggers you.
False. Try again
Do you need me to accept them?
Do you wish to accept them?
You have to show something negative of Trump laddie. Ghosted up "controversies" by the fake news media doesn't cut it.
Lewd speech is negative. Just because you deny and ignore such occurrences isn't sufficient to say they weren't controversies.
You're liberal, so you cannot tell your opinion from reality, but in reality, the one not between your ears, assumptions don't stand until they are proven. Things you say don't "stand" until they are disproven. That is loony liberal "logic". But keep your delusion that whatever you say "stands" until proven wrong. There is no need to wake you.
Assumptions that are tacitly accepted are accepted until further proven otherwise. Your loony conservative logic doesn't make this any less true
Yes. Remember when I told you controversies have to be in between groups?
Then those examples can't be "good"
All of them are good for America. Liberals do not like what is good for America. Tell us something we don't know.
Good? How so?
You asked. I supplied them.
I know accurate and objective representations are hard to express, but it's better to not say anything at all than to mislead. This is part of why you are against fake news yes?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Did you give sources for your 0% poll?
Yes. The 0 was hyperlinked. So again, sources for your claims?
Trump won. So I'm fine.
Nice deflect
It didn't occur. There was absolutely no evidence. That is what innocent until proven guilty means.
That is not what innocent until proven guilty means
Lol. Decorum? False allegations with no evidence? Liberals calling him a rapist? Attacking his family? Decorum?
Is decorum an undesirable trait?
Yeah, "clearly". Your liberal siblings were triggered. The rest of America went on with life.
How much is the rest of America?
That is why I have denied no controversy. You keep claiming them. Logic would help you my friend.
You've denied my examples as being controversial
Repeat it and place it in neon, it will be just as stupid. Nepotism refers to family members, not just anyone.Can the class say "backpeddle"?
Agreed. Didn't claim otherwise, which is why you're incorrect
You haven't shown it to be nepotism. You don't even seem to know what nepotism is. Until you do, it isn't nepotism.
I have shown that it is nepotism. You're denials do not make reality false.
I know that what triggers you has nothing to do controversies. Both are false.
How would you know this? You don't know what triggers me
You make many. Most wrong.
Which assumptions are wrong
No sir. We will not do it the silly liberal way, where you make a dumb assumption and it becomes my burden to prove it wrong. If you cannot prove your claims they get dismissed.
You've rejected multiple events which I consider to be controversies. Some a objectively negative for Trump. I assumed you ignore anything that is negative of Trump. You have not proven otherwise. The assumption stands
What is an example of "good" Trump behaviour that is viewed as controversy?*Keeping terrorists out of the country.*Telling the moron antifa that they were as bad, if not worse than the neo Nazis.*Not being a lemming and punishing Saudi Arabia.*Nominating and installing the wonderful Judge KavanaughShould I continue or are you triggered enough?
What is good depends on which side you are viewing it from. Those examples are debatably good. Some you have mischaracterised. etc etc etc
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Many. MSNBC, CNN, BBC, HUFFPOST, VOX and small fake news outlets.
Sources? What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Lol. Let me guess. You will still say poll results are accurate for the other states too.
If you are asserting they are not, you're free to pick and choose the examples which are not
No logical methodology gives you that wide a spread and then be wrong.
Internet polling is one example that can give inaccurate results.
No. But liberals "respect" whatever confirms their bias.
Conservatives "respect" whatever confirms their bias.
Do you think Judge Kavenaugh was guilty of assault of Mrs. Ford?Do you think he should have been made a supreme court judge?
1. Not enough information but I'm going to lead towards no, due to how long ago it occurred
2. No. Assault allegations aside, he lacks decorum. Supreme court judges are for life, America should have the best of the best, which he is clearly not.
And of course, as I told you, just because you do find something triggering, doesn't mean it is controversial. Your subjective opinion of her qualifications do not affect reality one bit.
Just because you do not find something triggering doesn't mean it isn't controversial.
No sir. I am correct. Please educate yourself on what nepotism means.
You are absolutely incorrect
You said your "it" referred to nepotism. Then later claimed you did not say it was nepotism. I satisfied enough to leave that bit of illogic unmolested.
Making arguments against fictional arguments still does not work.
Because I don't use as my definition of nepotism, "Whenever someone is given a public post whom dustryder thinks is unqualified."
Nor is that my definition of nepotism. You still haven't said what about Ivanka's post isn't nepotism
You don't know what "controversial" means. You seem to think it means "whatever triggers you." It doesn't.
You seem to think whatever triggers me is automatically non-controversial. This is false.
How would you know this? You don't know what I find controversial, and you assume something "controversial" would be critical of Trump. Your bias is crippling you son.
Knowing what you do not find controversial sets a lower bound for what you do find controversial. Hence I made an assumption. If that assumption is wrong, prove it.
You have latched on to controversies. Finding an objective controversy will do nothing. A behavior of Trump could be good or bad and still also be controversial.
What is an example of "good" Trump behaviour that is viewed as controversy?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
And I gave it to you in the form of logic. You not being equip to handle it is not my problem.It isn't a theory. Trump won. Unless you are implying election fraud, the polls showing Hillery with a 20% lead on election day were fake.
Very well, lets dig a little deeper. How many polls showed Hillary with a 20% lead on election day? How many of such polls are viewed with veracity? Can such abnormal numbers be explained away with explanations that do not include fictional people or claims of "fakeness"?
To start, how many polls showed Hillary with at least a 20% lead on election day? Exactly 0.
How many polls showed Hillary with at least a 20% lead within a week leading up to election day? I count 3 that are state specific, 0 for the general election.
Are any of these state specific evidence for fake polls? No not really. The states in question were for California and Massachusetts which are rampantly blue states and the poll results are accurate for their specific states.
I would've gone further, but obviously I can't if I cant find the data in which your basing your logic off.
So, which polls showed Hillary as +20 in the general election. Did you look at their methodologies? Are they respected polls in the grand scheme of things?
No, I will not. I will ask you another question. That is what you've been doing. I will not answer your questions if you won't answer mine. That you need to dodge questions is telling.
Ok go ahead.
Controversies between which groups? Liberal are perpetually outraged. As I told you, just because easily triggered liberals don't like something, does not automatically make that thing a controversy.
Liberals are indeed a group, and a pretty significantly large group at that. I think conflict between what liberals and conservatives find outrageous is a perfectly valid example of what fosters controversy. And of course, as I told you, just because you don't find something triggering, doesn't mean it isn't controversial.
Nice deflection, but what is subjective and what is objective is irrelevant here. Whether a person is appropriate for a job is not up to you. You do not have all the details about the person. Whether the person has education or not is not the question, but whether the president thinks the person is right for the position. He did think she was capable, and from the success of his administration, his assessment of her capability was correct.
I see there as being a difference between employing a qualified family member and an unqualified family member. Hopefully you do too. Since this is in terms of controversy, I think outsider perception of Ivanka's qualifications is important. I see her as being unqualified, and hence placing her into such an important position is controversial
That isn't what nepotism does either.
You are incorrect
Again. I asked you what your "it" was. You said "nepotism". Only to later tell me you didn't say it was nepotism. Equivocating and substituting an "it", that you later morph into nepotism will not work.
Making arguments against fictional arguments also does not work.
No. As it isn't nepotism, no, I don't think its an issue.
How is it not nepotism?
What does my personal acknowledgement have to do with it? Whether I personally acknowledge an event or not does not affect reality.My only point is to show you that just because you and your liberal pink hat hoards find something objectionable, that doesn't mean it is a social controversy.You want it to be because you began by blaming Trump for "controversies". The silliness and unfairness of blaming Trump for fake "controversies" drummed up by the fake media is objectionable.The media comes up with some fakery, you get triggered, and then blame Trump for the "controversy" in society? No sir.Logic will be required of you here.
Nothing really. You don't seem to care what other people find controversial, only what you find controversial. Though I'm glad that you recognise that events can be objectively controversial.
So the only question now is, how do we evaluate which of my events are objectively controversial, and which are fake controversial? Because you seem to ignore anything that is remotely critical of Trump
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Think man. If all those were really people claiming to vote for Hillery that the polls gave her a 20% lead, what happened to them? Did they evaporate? Leave the Earth? Change their minds 4 hours before voting? If the poll were not bogus, how did Trump win?
I believe I asked you if you had evidence. This is a splendid theory but is sorely lacking in evidence.
Think about it.
If you cannot answer a question, just say so
No. If everyone finds it unacceptable, there is no controversy. Controversies occur between people who find a certain behavior unacceptable, and those who do not.
Great. So do you accept that of the examples I have listed, some groups find such behaviours unacceptable and hence they are controversies?
When you cannot answer a question, say so.
How can I possibly answer a question until I know what your definition of subjective is. For example, I think that the years spent on education is an objective measurement of education. If you do not see this as an objective measurement then clearly, we can't agree on what is subjective and what is objective
You said, "Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain."That isn't what nepotism is.
I didn't say what nepotism is. I said it's what nepotism does
That still isn't nepotism.
Still didn't say it was
Discernible to whom? She knows him, and has his best interest at heart. He thinks she's qualified, and she has probably been advising him already. You are assuming your bias.
I suppose to anyone who is aware that Ivanka is serving in an official governmental capacity under her father and also makes a conscious thought of "Is this right?". Regardless I don't think you quite fully answered my question. It's certainly not an issue for Ivanka or Donald personally, but in a wider scheme do you think it's an issue in terms of how the executive branch is being run?
No.
In american society then, why can't there be events that are objectively controversial independently from your personal acknowledgements?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Donald himself being President is the evidence Einstein.
How so?
American society.
How does being part of American society allow you to judge whether news is controversial or not, without having knowledge or interesting in the news in question?
Accepted behavior cannot be controversial among the people who find it acceptable.
But equally, unaccepted behaviour can be controversial among the people who find it unacceptable right?
So a purely subjective opinion?
Are the years spent obtaining a doctorate compared to someone obtaining a GED subjective measures of educational achievement?
It cannot be referring to nepotism. You made no mention of family in your definition. You said “people”.Nepotism is the placing of family members in public positions they are not worthy of.
I understand the confusion. I made no definition of nepotism. I merely generalized a reason for why nepotism is looked down upon. That is, people are placed into undeserved positions
Probably not, but that would likely be because he would not have known her otherwise. Trump is the one who evaluates her qualification. You seem to be assuming your bias.
Is it an issue to have someone with objectively no discernible relevant experiences serving in official governmental capacity?
American society.How large is the “around you” you ask about?Perhaps those who share your ideological views?
I would consider American society to be the entirety of American people. Did you have a different grouping in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
The fine-tuned universe is an argument from probability and is fallacious right?
Created:
Yes. President Donald Trump.
How does Donald Trump attest otherwise?
A real controversy is viewed so by more than just leftist Trump haters.
How do you personally measure and evaluate the viewership of a story to determine whether it is controversial, non-controversial or fake-controversial?
I am part of the society that determines controversy.
Which society?
Again. What liberals don't like does not a controversy make.
But equally, just because conservatives are accepting of behaviour, doesn't mean an event isn't controversial. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
How does one know what position someone would've otherwise not been able to attain?
We can evaluate a candidates education, experiences and temperament, balanced against the requirements of a role and the performances of previous personnel compared to their education, experiences and temperament. For example, an 18 year old high school dropout is unlikely to be employed as an astronaut.
Your "it" here is equivocation. To what does it refer?
Nepotism
What you just described is not nepotism. Perhaps you don't know what it is.
In what way is what I have described not nepotism? Would you care to give your own definition of nepotism?
Sure. But I have no clue who you're talking about.
In what way is Ivanka Trump qualified to be Advisor to the President? Do you think she would've been appointed to the position if she were not the President's daughter?
In a society I am not a part of, sure.
Which society are you a part of? Is it comprised of just those around you? Perhaps those who share your ideological views?
Created:
Posted in:
Seven votes,
Two gave everything to Pro
One gave arguments to Pro
One gave conduct to Pro
Three fully tied
Troll?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Do you think the polls represented real people saying they would vote for Hillery?
Do you have evidence that attests otherwise?
I'm saying whenever the fake news shoves you a fake story, you view it as a controversy. The only people in a tizzy are Trump hating liberals. Normal people just carry on as liberals and their fake news run around like chickens with the heads cut off.
What is the difference between a story that is viewed as controversial, and a story that is actually controversial? Moreover in what way is Trump enacting a travel ban a fake story?
I don't know and I don't care. I want my president to lower taxes, keep terrorists out of the country, stabilize the economy, and appoint sensible judges. I don't waste time with tabloid rags.
If you don't know and don't care about a particular topic, how can you judge it to be fake news, much less controversial or not? Do you then acknowledge that the access hollywood tapes could be a controversial issue either because you don't know about it, or because you don't care about it but others might?
Placing family into positions in private companies is considered normal and expected. I am grooming my eldest daughter right now to take over my business
So two things.
Nepotism places people who have not deserved it into positions of power they would've otherwise not been able to attain. For that reason, it is often looked down upon. Given this, do you acknowledge why people might consider this to be controversial even if you do not?
And, do you acknowledge that there is a significant difference between grooming your daughter to take over your business, and giving governmental positions to people whose sole qualification is their name?
I don't care. As my brain is not frazzled by irrational Trump hate, I don't pour over silly, petty things looking for controversies. I have a life."Insensitive" is a liberal code word. Trump is exactly the same as he has always been, and we elected him. We are sensitive to jobs, safety, and a good economy.We thank God each day that Trump is not a typical leader of a 1st world country. That is what we dumped when we canned Obama and is crooked would be successor.
So do you acknowledge that an issue can objectively be a controversy without you personally acknowledging it as one?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
There were no such polls dolly. They were fabricated lies.
To clarify, are you questioning the existence of the polls, or what the polls said?
Think man. The controversy was the made up one that Trump had overstepped his authority. Only liberals were screaming and gnashing teeth.
To clarify, are you saying there was no controversy at all or are you saying that there was a controversy but the basis of the controversy was fake?
Posted by sjw liberal snowflakes who find Trump's breathing to be "controversial". And then picked up by the fake news media, and viola, you liberals have a "controversy" you can use to denigrate Trump. Fake.
Well, let's examine one of my examples a little closer. For example, the access hollywood tapes. Did Trump utter the phrase "Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.".
If he did, was this phrase controversial? Why or why not?
"Some people" find ANYTHING that is negative about Trump interesting. The fake news knows this.
But this doesn't mean that they are non-issues. Perhaps you just find news in general uninteresting. For example, why is Trump's nepotism a non-issue? Actually before that, perhaps it should be asked if you believe Trump engaged in nepotism or not.
Common sense and being free of the irrational hatred of Trump.
I didn't intend to discuss that with you, but let's go ahead. What basis do you have to believe that Trumps explanation is genuine?
Apart from that, would you agree or disagree that Trump has had a history of making insensitive remarks or actions? At the very least moreso than a typical leader of a 1st world country
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@dylancatlow
Then you should be able to find a CNN article that says Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault to back up your claims right? From my quick googling, most CNN articles have framed it in a accuser vs accused or in terms of allegations way. This language specifically indicates that Kavanaugh was only accused.Remember Judge Kavenaugh? CNN reported he was guilty of sexual assault. That was a lie. It was their opinion, but told their viewers it was an actual fact.
You would think so right? But with Russia collusion, the fake news was already talking about whether Trump would only be impeached or also face jail time. For them, the collusion was an established fact.
Source?
Kavenaugh, Russia Collusion, or the pre-election numbers. Where did the fake news get those numbers that showed Hillery winning by double digits? Those weren't mistakes, they were lies.
From polls I'd assume? Do you think otherwise?
Sure. You would, because you follow the fake news like a good liberal. We know better. We know, for example, that the list Trump used to exclude citizens from 7 countries from entering the US was an Obama list. The fake news didn't report that, and you were swept away in the "controversy", but when it went to the supreme court, we saw it was a made up controversy, fake news. The supreme court ruled that Trump had acted legally.
So, just because the supreme court arbitrates on either side of a matter doesn't make the matter controversial or non-controversial. For example, in the case of Roe vs Wade, just because the supreme court arbitrated in favour of abortions, doesn't make the issue any less controversial. Do you agree with this?
No, they were stupidity gassed up by the fake news meant to send liberals like you into a froth.
Of course that's one opinion. However the only reason we both know about those events is because they are controversial issues that have circulated the internet
They are all non-issues reported as if they were hidden crimes of Trump. All complete with the speculation of how the noose was closing around Trump and his downfall was only a matter of time.
In what way are they non-issues? For example, some people might find it interesting to find out the president has engaged in nepotism, as a departure from the norm.
Some of the criticism is deserved, but much of it is driven by pure hatred. You can think of it this way: to the extent that Trump is right, the media are dishonest, because they find it impossible to deviate from their anti-Trump rhetoric even for a second to acknowledge that something he has said makes sense. They continue to peddle the lie that Trump "mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled" when this is demonstrably not the case. It is established fact that Trump's impression of that disabled reporter is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person. How likely do you think it is that he even remembered the reporter in question or that he was disabled? Some in the media are surely aware of the facts, yet the media product continues to reflect the false assumption the media have made in regard to the incident since the very beginning. You may think this is a petty thing to focus on, but it's not. It's the clearest example of media bias I can think of, and is proof that when the media can't find enough real things to criticize Trump about they resort to false allegations so that they can continue to present Trump as the stupidest and most immoral man alive.
I think people are capable of acknowledging when something makes sense or not, but in the case of Trump it's a matter of him crying wolf several times too many. For example, it is not established fact that Trump's impression is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person, only that it is his explanation for the event. It is then a case of whether there is evidence to support his explanation, and if there isn't, whether his explanation is credible or not.
In this case, his explanation suggests that he has made the movement before. In which case is there a record of such? I'll operate under the assumption that there is no record of him performing the action and hence one must decide whether his explanation is credible, and this is where we apparently differ. For example, Trump has had a history of diversive comments and actions. Hence I'm less inclined to believe his explanation. The only question that remains is what lets you believe his explanation?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
How does one report opinion as fact? For example, reporting on speculative future events can only ever be thought of as opinion, such as the crashing of the stock markets. Perhaps you could give me a concrete case in the context of one of your examples?
There are multiple examples of what I would consider controversy in the current administration. For example,
Nepotism
Suitability of multiple employees/nominations
Hypocrisy in regards to Obama and his golfing
Stormy Daniels
His tax returns
Compliance with the emoluents clause
James Comey
Family separation
"Shithole countries"
Access hollywood tapes
Were these events controversal? In what manner are they fake?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Is that really fake news? To me, fake news is, or at the very least should be news that is nonfactual but is reported as factual. Those topics seem more like subjective opinion pieces to me. And hopefully we can agree that he, his candidacy and his presidency have been marred with enough controversies that negative opinion is hardly unwarranted or a surprise.
Created:
A third option would've been for him to accept the criticisms with grace, and perhaps give out reasonings for specific unpopular decisions or policies. Instead of, you know, lashing out like a baboon and giving credence to the media's claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
I'm not surprised. Some of your votes have been hideously dishonest
Created: