Trump acts like a child while everyone else stands for the anthem

[colfax_m]

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

 

[dblack]

I think that, ultimately, most Republicans realize they are supporting an unhinged crackpot. But they don't care because a) he's doing some things they like, and b) he's not a Democrat. The fact that they are willing to play these kinds of games, putting our country at real risk for the sake of short-term political gain, proves exactly what kind of "patriots" they are.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Untrustworthy. He has been the most transparent president in my lifetime. He does it via Twitter so that the media cannot twist his words.

That’s not transparency. He’s been suppressing government information since he came into office. Visitor logs were withheld. We can’t even count how many Congressional requests he’s refused, subpoenas he’s blocked, testimony he refuses. There’s a record number of lawsuits stemming from FOIA requests that have been denied. He only does interviews with suck ups like Sean Hannity who is practically an extension of his administration. No press briefings. Non-disclosure agreements for everyone in the executive.

Twitter is not a substitute for government transparency. He has no obligation to be truthful or honest.

Link that please. When the press is 93% negative against you, I do not blame him for not being "transparent" in the old fashioned way.

"When the press is 93% negative against you"

but FOX news is the most watched news outlet

and they are 98% FAVORABLE to trump


if a tree says something bad about trump in the woods does it actually make a sound?


Is it NEGATIVE to report the facts about trump?

when he mocks a dead veteran and the press reports it..... is this an example of the PRESS behaving badly? or trump behaving badly?


is trump bad for mocking dead vets?
or is the press bad for reporting it?

When Obama was president the CONSERVATIVE MEDIA (especially FOX) was 99% negative.....

is that ok?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Just like Bristol Tennessee and Bristol Virginia the city is split between the two states

Fort Campbell is located in both KY and TN.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

 

[colfax_m]

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

It’s not. Never has been. Journalism is identifying the truth. Debates don’t identify truth. They give opinions. It’s important, to be sure, but it doesn’t identify truth.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

3
It’s not. Never has been. Journalism is identifying the truth. Debates don’t identify truth. They give opinions. It’s important, to be sure, but it doesn’t identify truth.

Sometimes the truth is in opinions. Red Sox play in Fenway Park is the truth and a fact. Red Sox are a great team is an opinion. The fun part of journalism is debating whether they are a great team or not

 

[colfax_m]

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

 

[beautress]

Ah, the usual Trump hypocrisy. Acting like a jackass during the anthem is okay but kneeling is blasphemy!

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

Americans to not kneel to anyone but the Lord. But you surely knew that. My grandmother wouldn't even allow the dancers in the family to curtsy. Said it smacked of Royalty, and we threw all that away in the Revolutionary War. I learned that when 4 years old.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

 

[beautress]

Lol a collection of TDS has formed lol

What's the matter, you think the people wanting into the Criminal Activity in the Executive Branch needs a longer waiting line?

View attachment 304362

Only Morans believe Adam Schiff. Really, Daryl. Democrats had a ball when they were doing their usual evildoings of accusing innocent Republicans of things they did not do, namely President Trump. They made up stories just to fool their college followers into thinking President Trump did something wrong. He did not. They belong in jail, not congress.

 

[colfax_m]

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

3
It’s not. Never has been. Journalism is identifying the truth. Debates don’t identify truth. They give opinions. It’s important, to be sure, but it doesn’t identify truth.

Sometimes the truth is in opinions. Red Sox play in Fenway Park is the truth and a fact. Red Sox are a great team is an opinion. The fun part of journalism is debating whether they are a great team or not

Debating whether they’re a great team is not journalism. That’s opinion. It’s fun, for sure, but it’s not journalism.

The fun part of journalism is uncovering truth that is hidden. No one gets a Pulitzer because they identified that Fenway is where the Red Sox play. They get a Pulitzer for examining decades of Trump’s financial records and exposing how the wealthy manipulate their wealth to avoid taxes.

 

[colfax_m]

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

Okay. But that’s irrelevant to whether Trump is truthful or not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

3
It’s not. Never has been. Journalism is identifying the truth. Debates don’t identify truth. They give opinions. It’s important, to be sure, but it doesn’t identify truth.

Sometimes the truth is in opinions. Red Sox play in Fenway Park is the truth and a fact. Red Sox are a great team is an opinion. The fun part of journalism is debating whether they are a great team or not

Debating whether they’re a great team is not journalism. That’s opinion. It’s fun, for sure, but it’s not journalism.

The fun part of journalism is uncovering truth that is hidden. No one gets a Pulitzer because they identified that Fenway is where the Red Sox play. They get a Pulitzer for examining decades of Trump’s financial records and exposing how the wealthy manipulate their wealth to avoid taxes.

Or maybe discovering that Joe Biden got his son a cool gig in Ukraine that paid him $83k per month while not paying child support? Or how people manipulate the system and take advantage of Medicaid. Yes, much of the news is negative. I prefer to discuss the Red Sox.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

Okay. But that’s irrelevant to whether Trump is truthful or not.

It is most relevant as he ran on a stronger economy and better trade deals and moving the embassy to Jerusalem. That was truthful. Don’t care about his hyperbolic bravado.

 

[colfax_m]

He is a super liar. It seems like you can't even bring yourself to say it aloud. You're always using euphemisms to soften it.

Interesting.

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

Okay. But that’s irrelevant to whether Trump is truthful or not.

It is most relevant as he ran on a stronger economy and better trade deals and moving the embassy to Jerusalem. That was truthful. Don’t care about his hyperbolic bravado.

You care enough about his “hyperbolic bravado” to avoid calling it what it really is. If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t have a problem identifying him as a liar that we both know he is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

Okay. But that’s irrelevant to whether Trump is truthful or not.

It is most relevant as he ran on a stronger economy and better trade deals and moving the embassy to Jerusalem. That was truthful. Don’t care about his hyperbolic bravado.

You care enough about his “hyperbolic bravado” to avoid calling it what it really is. If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t have a problem identifying him as a liar that we both know he is.

His lie about having sex with Stormy Daniels is the only one I can recall off the top of my head. Which one can you recall without Googling it? The rest is hyperbolic bravado. Now you’re saying my opinion is wrong? Interesting.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.

I think it is. I think that is precisely what it is actually. Facts are facts. Not sure what you mean?

3
It’s not. Never has been. Journalism is identifying the truth. Debates don’t identify truth. They give opinions. It’s important, to be sure, but it doesn’t identify truth.

Sometimes the truth is in opinions. Red Sox play in Fenway Park is the truth and a fact. Red Sox are a great team is an opinion. The fun part of journalism is debating whether they are a great team or not

Debating whether they’re a great team is not journalism. That’s opinion. It’s fun, for sure, but it’s not journalism.

The fun part of journalism is uncovering truth that is hidden. No one gets a Pulitzer because they identified that Fenway is where the Red Sox play. They get a Pulitzer for examining decades of Trump’s financial records and exposing how the wealthy manipulate their wealth to avoid taxes.

Or maybe discovering that Joe Biden got his son a cool gig in Ukraine that paid him $83k per month while not paying child support? Or how people manipulate the system and take advantage of Medicaid. Yes, much of the news is negative. I prefer to discuss the Red Sox.

Hmm, interesting point. You act as though it’s a fact they Joe Biden got his son a cool gig when there is no factual basis for that.

No one is getting a Pulitzer for making things up.

That’s what I mean about debates. If we put two people up on a TV show to debate if Joe Biden got Hunter his job, people are just going to ignore the one they don’t want to listen to. No facts. No truth. Just two biased views. That’s not journalism.

 

[beautress]

Because that is how see it.

I get it. I’ve seen it in a lot of Trump supporters. It occurs in other people highly invested in their political parties, but the extent one would have to go to in order to justify Trump’s lies is beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

As I have stated before he has done a very good job for the economy, Israel, and our military. That is what is important to me. His USMCA agreement has garnered a strong client. His presidency has helped my family tremendously.

Okay. But that’s irrelevant to whether Trump is truthful or not.

It is most relevant as he ran on a stronger economy and better trade deals and moving the embassy to Jerusalem. That was truthful. Don’t care about his hyperbolic bravado.

You care enough about his “hyperbolic bravado” to avoid calling it what it really is. If you really didn’t care, you wouldn’t have a problem identifying him as a liar that we both know he is.

You shouldn't be so hard on Mr. Schiff. He just lies to make his fellow demmies feel good. /snicker