Rozalia Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Obama bailed out the auto industry. Whether or not you agree with that on a philosophical basis, you can't deny he saved jobs. But that's a red herring and irrelevant. Meh, I would have personally rated it as "true, but misleading," but Politfact does present compelling evidence that the context of his statement makes it false. Trump looks at a narrow one month time frame where the debt is likely to fluctuate, especially since that damned Obama left him with 382 billion in the treasury. By sheer coincidence, I suppose, that number has fallen to 228 billion, corresponding to that drop in the national debt. But I digress. The national debt is going to go up. Anyone who knows basic addition can tell you. Again, Trump is saying something stupid and the media jumps on it. Your point? The difference between Obama and Trump was that when the national debt went up under Obama, Obama didn't go on twitter and say "the national debt is going down!" That's why Politifact didn't do a script on Obama, because Obama was honest, unlike Trump. You know what they did do a script on? Obama and his claim that the ACA costs weren't rising. I wasn't referring to that and you know it. I suppose if Trump stated the amount of nice clear sunny days a city had they'd call him a liar for not being responsible for said sunny days too huh? He made a factual statement which was correct. You can say its mostly true and follow up with your talk, heck even a half true though that'd irk many. A mostly false on the other hand is extreme and shows their clear bias. Stating a factual statement like that is stupid? Obama honest, hehehe. The man was a snake who put the left to sleep and would stab them while their slept with his neo-liberal edged knife. Only part you're correct on is something we've argued on before and I'll take you conceded to me. Which was that Trump sells his achievements so they matter more to the people, while Obama didn't and so his are worth less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 I wasn't referring to that and you know it. I suppose if Trump stated the amount of nice clear sunny days a city had they'd call him a liar for not being responsible for said sunny days too huh? He made a factual statement which was correct. You can say its mostly true and follow up with your talk, heck even a half true though that'd irk many. A mostly false on the other hand is extreme and shows their clear bias. Stating a factual statement like that is stupid? Obama honest, hehehe. The man was a snake who put the left to sleep and would stab them while their slept with his neo-liberal edged knife. Only part you're correct on is something we've argued on before and I'll take you conceded to me. Which was that Trump sells his achievements so they matter more to the people, while Obama didn't and so his are worth less. Sure, you weren't. Like I knew what you were referring to. So, Trump is just randomly stating on Twitter that the debt is down. Ok. Why doesn't he say random stuff that he's not responsible for on twitter normally anyway? Tell me, in all honesty, how many instances Obama lied off the top of your head. And I'll bet you 20 bucks I can think of more times Trump has lied off the top of my head. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) So, Trump is just randomly stating on Twitter that the debt is down. Ok. Why doesn't he say random stuff that he's not responsible for on twitter normally anyway? I guess he's not allowed to tweet that the debt is down without being thrown from the rooftops by mighty and noble Caecus for not tweeting something else instead. ffs guy Ok, I think I read that wrong, but I'll still ffs guy you. Edited February 27, 2017 by fistofdoom Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Sure, you weren't. Like I knew what you were referring to. So, Trump is just randomly stating on Twitter that the debt is down. Ok. Why doesn't he say random stuff that he's not responsible for on twitter normally anyway? Tell me, in all honesty, how many instances Obama lied off the top of your head. And I'll bet you 20 bucks I can think of more times Trump has lied off the top of my head. Of course you know, we've been over these things before. You give credit to Obama beyond the auto bailout, something you can't even fully commit to but whatever as I don't care to push on that, on all those other jobs which he has little to do with. Trump: The sun came out nice and bright this morning. Caecus: You lie! You did not make the sun come out nice and bright. There are numerous such pages which list such things for Trump and honestly I would not trust you to do such things off your head, not mention it'd be a mug's game to bother. Trump runs his mouth all the time. Obama is slick and careful managed. Obama of course has lied, anything war related from him is pretty much a lie with what he has done. The real problem with Obama was how he could do things that any Republican would have gotten protests and a lot of attention for and Obama... got little as he is a democrat and can be smooth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 What do you know? More whining by the cultural Marxists. Sorry to break it to you, but this is only just the beginning. Quote "Your cattle will die, your friends will die, you will die. But your reputation, if it is good, will never die." -excerpt from the Havamal "We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man." -Oswald Spengler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 "bullshit" That's cute, but people can google this shit and know that you are trolling. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Of course you know, we've been over these things before. You give credit to Obama beyond the auto bailout, something you can't even fully commit to but whatever as I don't care to push on that, on all those other jobs which he has little to do with. Trump: The sun came out nice and bright this morning. Caecus: You lie! You did not make the sun come out nice and bright. There are numerous such pages which list such things for Trump and honestly I would not trust you to do such things off your head, not mention it'd be a mug's game to bother. Trump runs his mouth all the time. Obama is slick and careful managed. Obama of course has lied, anything war related from him is pretty much a lie with what he has done. The real problem with Obama was how he could do things that any Republican would have gotten protests and a lot of attention for and Obama... got little as he is a democrat and can be smooth. Too embarrassing for you to admit you are wrong? I'm sure I'm the reason why Trump doesn't tweet about the weather. I'm still working on trying to have him tweet his tax returns to show he's not bought by the Russians, but alas. Trump has said more lies than Obama. The fact that you blindly believe in Trump's lies but can't logically defend them is hilarious. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Too embarrassing for you to admit you are wrong? I'm sure I'm the reason why Trump doesn't tweet about the weather. I'm still working on trying to have him tweet his tax returns to show he's not bought by the Russians, but alas. Trump has said more lies than Obama. The fact that you blindly believe in Trump's lies but can't logically defend them is hilarious. On what? I simply cited your double standard and you have as ever failed to prove me wrong. You can keep distracting with your garbage tricks but it won't change that fact. A factual statement is a factual statement whoever says it. What you're trying is to goad me into going onto weak ground by defending lies, and there are many, that you were planning to bat at me. To do so would certainly be wrong and if I did such a thing you might for once take the advantage. However I didn't so having not played the role you've assigned me you now deem my lack of defense as being wrong too. As such whatever I am to do it suits you fine... if we allow this game to be played by your rules anyway. The most esteemed Roz-sama sees through such dishonest trickery and you should be ashamed of yourself. Sad! Edited February 28, 2017 by Rozalia 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 On what? I simply cited your double standard and you have as ever failed to prove me wrong. You can keep distracting with your garbage tricks but it won't change that fact. A factual statement is a factual statement whoever says it. What you're trying is to goad me into going onto weak ground by defending lies, and there are many, that you were planning to bat at me. To do so would certainly be wrong and if I did such a thing you might for once take the advantage. However I didn't so having not played the role you've assigned me you now deem my lack of defense as being wrong too. As such whatever I am to do it suits you fine... if we allow this game to be played by your rules anyway. The most esteemed Roz-sama sees through such dishonest trickery and you should be ashamed of yourself. Sad! Ok. That still doesn't change the fact that it implies Trump did something to make the debt go down. Especially when he put it next to Obama's debt numbers, which he did pass legislation for to increase deficit spending. A "factual" statement has an underlying lie: that he somehow had anything to do with the debt. Anyone not familiar with the fact he hasn't passed a budget will think, "Oh, Trump made the deficit go down! He's doing a good job!" when in fact, he's done nothing. Also, due to the fluctuations of the debt, it's also hard to make your case that you definitively decreased the debt, if it just goes back up in an oscillating cycle. That also brings up a point: 1 month in, and Trump has failed to do anything. He's signed a bunch of executive orders, but due to the lack of a budget, he's been unable to do jack crap about it. Even his "Muslim ban" failed, and due to recent reports coming from DHS, he doesn't have a good reason to reinstate it through another better planned order. In contrast, Obama passed his multi-billion dollar stimulus package, drafted the ACA and began the steps to push it through congress, and shored up plans to remove troops from Iraq. Trump and his administration has only flailed about so far, mostly doing small things that are insignificant compared to previous administrations, republican and democrat alike. The fact you have to say you won't be tricked into defending your president's lies is hilarious, considering that Trump ran on the platform that Hillary and Ted lied. It's funny because Trump and his supporters once accused Hillary of treason, while at the same time colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. That's like the kettle calling the pot black. Except Hillary didn't actually commit treason, Trump did. I think Trump is trying to discredit the media because he knows there is a story in the pipes about him committing treason or something morally dubious like watching Russian hookers pee on a mattress. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 The fact you have to say you won't be tricked into defending your president's lies is hilarious, considering that Trump ran on the platform that Hillary and Ted lied. It's funny because Trump and his supporters once accused Hillary of treason, while at the same time colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. That's like the kettle calling the pot black. Except Hillary didn't actually commit treason, Trump did. I think Trump is trying to discredit the media because he knows there is a story in the pipes about him committing treason or something morally dubious like watching Russian hookers pee on a mattress. 100% legit question: Did Hillary not send/receive any classified data on her server, or did she not know what a classified document looked like? [citation needed] How so? I think he is trying to discredit the media because it is biased as hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 100% legit question: Did Hillary not send/receive any classified data on her server, or did she not know what a classified document looked like? [citation needed] How so? I think he is trying to discredit the media because it is biased as hell. I think she knew, but she didn't care, nor did it cross her mind that it could potentially be hacked. 100% legit question: was that treason? If so, why has senior Trump advisers done the same thing? http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316130-trump-wh-senior-staff-have-private-email-accounts-report Haha, you got me. I don't have that evidence saying Trump's election team actively contacted with the Russian government during the election. Post-election? Sure, that's why old Mikey was fired. But, if Trump requested Russia to hack the DNC on live television, would that count as collusion with a foreign government to influence the election? Cause I do have that. Do tell. What has Hillary done that Trump hasn't already? Does bias mean entirely false? Bias implies a certain level of objective reality that has been bent and altered to form a narrative to promote an agenda. You could say Fox News is biased, or the Huffington Post is biased because they peddle real information with an ideological narrative. Fake news, on the other hand, implies something entirely outside of reality. Trump is trying to de-legitimize the media by calling them, not biased, but false. Presumably to attack the basis of objective reality. Interestingly enough, Fox News isn't considered part of the "Mainstream Media." Huh. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Ok. That still doesn't change the fact that it implies Trump did something to make the debt go down. Especially when he put it next to Obama's debt numbers, which he did pass legislation for to increase deficit spending. A "factual" statement has an underlying lie: that he somehow had anything to do with the debt. Anyone not familiar with the fact he hasn't passed a budget will think, "Oh, Trump made the deficit go down! He's doing a good job!" when in fact, he's done nothing. Also, due to the fluctuations of the debt, it's also hard to make your case that you definitively decreased the debt, if it just goes back up in an oscillating cycle. That also brings up a point: 1 month in, and Trump has failed to do anything. He's signed a bunch of executive orders, but due to the lack of a budget, he's been unable to do jack crap about it. Even his "Muslim ban" failed, and due to recent reports coming from DHS, he doesn't have a good reason to reinstate it through another better planned order. In contrast, Obama passed his multi-billion dollar stimulus package, drafted the ACA and began the steps to push it through congress, and shored up plans to remove troops from Iraq. Trump and his administration has only flailed about so far, mostly doing small things that are insignificant compared to previous administrations, republican and democrat alike. The fact you have to say you won't be tricked into defending your president's lies is hilarious, considering that Trump ran on the platform that Hillary and Ted lied. It's funny because Trump and his supporters once accused Hillary of treason, while at the same time colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. That's like the kettle calling the pot black. Except Hillary didn't actually commit treason, Trump did. I think Trump is trying to discredit the media because he knows there is a story in the pipes about him committing treason or something morally dubious like watching Russian hookers pee on a mattress. Trump more than any other can make waves without needing to sign a thing. His outsider status alone has effects and beyond that his tweets have grown so powerful he can shake things up with them. Anyway he stated that debt has gone in his first month while it went up in Obama's first month. That was it and certainly compared to Obama he did better there. Also what you fail to realise is what you are saying right there? Utterly irrelevant. No one who matters (those not in either camp firmly) cares about such things. What they see is a factual statement which is confirmed as true and then labeled a lie regardless. Such incidents only help firm Trump up and make more people believe that if they hear that he has told a lie then maybe it was the truth and its just labeled a lie. Not everyone can find stuff out and what is placed into people's mind is vital. None of your type clearly has any understanding of such things. Clearly you're one of those "on paper" people who doesn't understand that things don't work out as directly stated on paper. Trump did a hurricane of actions to the point the MSM attacked him on doing too much. The idea planted in the people's minds is that Trump, even while opposed massively (like Obama some might say) has done loads of stuff. His plan is also clearly to bat out of the park every single promise he put down in his "Contract with America" which he will use to state his honesty and his claim that he'd "get things done". This will naturally be followed by citing Obama promises he couldn't get down in 4-8 years. Of course you'll defend every single one, you'll say the Republicans blocked it or something (likely the case) but again, utterly irrelevant. How it all registers in the people's minds is what is important. I assume this is your your own deficiencies talking here because when you support someone you don't need to defend every statement they make no. Its why I don't embarrass myself while you will twist and turn to defend Obama and so on. The media inflicted the first wounds by declaring war on Trump. The second batch came after they tried to hit Trump with "FAKE NEWS" to discredit him... which he promptly sent back around and hit them with. Don't cry for the media, they did it to themselves. Also to note I have not ever cited conspiracies such as Pizzagate and others while you will cite anything that is of the same category. You discredit yourself (though I suppose there isn't much left there) with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 So, you are okay with a vindictive, conniving, corrupt politician so long as it's an orange dude without any government experience? But the people don't think of it that way. Trump is at a historically low approval rating for first term presidents at the same point in time. Nixon had better approval ratings than Trump does today. MSNBC puts him at 44%, which is flattering, considering Gallup has him at 42. lol. You know the difference between my claim and your Swedish claim is? People actually have reason, based on Trump's past business ties, political dealings, and things he's said that it's entirely possible he's colluded with the Russians. People don't have any reason to question Swedish statistics outside of their "personal feelings." Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 So, you are okay with a vindictive, conniving, corrupt politician so long as it's an orange dude without any government experience? But the people don't think of it that way. Trump is at a historically low approval rating for first term presidents at the same point in time. Nixon had better approval ratings than Trump does today. MSNBC puts him at 44%, which is flattering, considering Gallup has him at 42. lol. You know the difference between my claim and your Swedish claim is? People actually have reason, based on Trump's past business ties, political dealings, and things he's said that it's entirely possible he's colluded with the Russians. People don't have any reason to question Swedish statistics outside of their "personal feelings." I'm not a purity fanatic nor do I suffer the illusions that the good side doesn't lie while the bad one does. Both do. With that in mind I take into account who ultimately steers the ship into more favourable climate. Clinton was a Globalist and the same old. Trump was an outsider who had made talk of ripping up the TPP and other widely unrepublican things, and whose victory would change the world by emboldening groups all across the world, and not simply "far right" groups either. The Tories in Great Britain have been only getting stronger since Brexit and Trump. I'm no fan of the Tories of course but the goal there is to get out of the EU so you grin and bear it until the job is finished. Says this while Trump with historically low numbers won an election against all odds. People such as yourself who will oppose him no matter what are irrelevant to the message. The message nearly needs to reach those not in either camp and whatever the approval ratings say is irrelevant. Trump also has a shy Tory effect to him. Yes. People don't have a right to question Sweden on why they don't publish a certain type of statistics after the last one in 2005 (for 1997-2001) didn't paint a pretty picture for their policies. What I said, and this is as I am a fair person, is that as Sweden suspiciously covers up important and relevant statistics then those who speak of a cover up do in fact have something to stand on. They would not have anything if Sweden didn't stop the publishing of such vital statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 I think she knew, but she didn't care, nor did it cross her mind that it could potentially be hacked. 100% legit question: was that treason? If so, why has senior Trump advisers done the same thing? http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316130-trump-wh-senior-staff-have-private-email-accounts-report Do tell. What has Hillary done that Trump hasn't already? Does bias mean entirely false? Bias implies a certain level of objective reality that has been bent and altered to form a narrative to promote an agenda. You could say Fox News is biased, or the Huffington Post is biased because they peddle real information with an ideological narrative. Fake news, on the other hand, implies something entirely outside of reality. Trump is trying to de-legitimize the media by calling them, not biased, but false. Presumably to attack the basis of objective reality. Did I call that treason? Was there any classified data on it? Was there any classified data on it? She was called a liar, unethical, and a dishonest lawyer after Watergate by Jerry Zeifman, who said "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." He also stated, "She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality." http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf I mean, I could post all of those articles which ranged from biased to misleading and some were even flat out false. It would really depend on your definition of "fake news." Would posting something along the lines of this be "fake news," or would it be a mistake? Would contradicting yourself within the same year in order to damage one candidate be "fake news?" Would messing with a focus group be "fake news?" What about taking an answer out of context? Not trying to troll. How "fake" the news is depends on your answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Did I call that treason? Was there any classified data on it? Was there any classified data on it? She was called a liar, unethical, and a dishonest lawyer after Watergate by Jerry Zeifman, who said "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." He also stated, "She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality." http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf I mean, I could post all of those articles which ranged from biased to misleading and some were even flat out false. It would really depend on your definition of "fake news." Would posting something along the lines of this be "fake news," or would it be a mistake? Would contradicting yourself within the same year in order to damage one candidate be "fake news?" Would messing with a focus group be "fake news?" What about taking an answer out of context? Not trying to troll. How "fake" the news is depends on your answers. No, I suppose you didn't. Though I do recall some of the more radical rhetoric during the campaign. The issue with Clinton's emails was that it was susceptible to hacking, and the information on that server would compromise the US. That was assumed when she dealt with "classified" documents. Without knowing what has been sent through senior adviser emails, we can't know if anything classified has been discussed. But, in light of what happened to their political opponent, you would imagine them to be more strict on retaining private emails. So, you are taking the word of one person at face value from roughly 40 years ago. To be fair, he was right though. Clinton wanted to deny Nixon his "right to private counsel" because she thought everything regarding impeachment should be in the public eye. Nixon was the first president of the United States to undergo impeachment hearings, and Clinton wanted to set the precedent. This, ironically speaking, would have eventually denied her husband private counsel some 20 years later. I still don't see how this makes Clinton worse than Trump. Trump would have simply called for Nixon's head on national television in the populist, demagogic way he does things. But I suppose that is speculation at this point. In all honesty, I haven't carefully looked at all your news stories yet, but I think I know what you are referring to. If you are specifically talking about newspaper headlines, I would argue this was a result of the 24 hour news cycle, and how everyone expects their news to be interesting and free. It's click bait, I've seen some of those headlines from every major news organization, including Fox, NBC, ABC, and CNN. But if you look inside the articles, very few of them will contain false information. Sure, biased reporting to interpret facts for an ideological purpose, but not straight up false information. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 The issue with Clinton's emails was that it was susceptible to hacking, and the information on that server would compromise the US. That was assumed when she dealt with "classified" documents. Without knowing what has been sent through senior adviser emails, we can't know if anything classified has been discussed. But, in light of what happened to their political opponent, you would imagine them to be more strict on retaining private emails. So, you are taking the word of one person at face value from roughly 40 years ago. To be fair, he was right though. Clinton wanted to deny Nixon his "right to private counsel" because she thought everything regarding impeachment should be in the public eye. Nixon was the first president of the United States to undergo impeachment hearings, and Clinton wanted to set the precedent. This, ironically speaking, would have eventually denied her husband private counsel some 20 years later. I still don't see how this makes Clinton worse than Trump. Trump would have simply called for Nixon's head on national television in the populist, demagogic way he does things. But I suppose that is speculation at this point. In all honesty, I haven't carefully looked at all your news stories yet, but I think I know what you are referring to. If you are specifically talking about newspaper headlines, I would argue this was a result of the 24 hour news cycle, and how everyone expects their news to be interesting and free. It's click bait, I've seen some of those headlines from every major news organization, including Fox, NBC, ABC, and CNN. But if you look inside the articles, very few of them will contain false information. Sure, biased reporting to interpret facts for an ideological purpose, but not straight up false information. According to you, she knew what classified emails looked like. I think she knew, but she didn't care, nor did it cross her mind that it could potentially be hacked. Comey said on 7/7/16, "Our investigation found that there was classified information. ... There was classified material emailed." Yeah, I would. Apparently, they aren't. Next election, it might benefit you. What comes around goes around. Did anyone before the election (rampant bias) claim he was an unethical, dishonest businessman? What about everyone who just looks at a headline that was shared on social media? If those people believe everything the media throws at them, or at least the major news organizations, then they think that Trump is bombing hospitals, schools, etc. over a month before he takes office. They think the polls can't be skewed, but then they were. They think Trump hates vets with PTSD, based off of a few misleading words. Now, we both look into articles we read, and probably most of the people on the PaW forums does. There are people out there who read articles, fact check them, analyze them, and so on. However, there are plenty of people who never get past the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 Did anyone before the election (rampant bias) claim he was an unethical, dishonest businessman? What about everyone who just looks at a headline that was shared on social media? If those people believe everything the media throws at them, or at least the major news organizations, then they think that Trump is bombing hospitals, schools, etc. over a month before he takes office. They think the polls can't be skewed, but then they were. They think Trump hates vets with PTSD, based off of a few misleading words. Now, we both look into articles we read, and probably most of the people on the PaW forums does. There are people out there who read articles, fact check them, analyze them, and so on. However, there are plenty of people who never get past the title. To be fair, Trump wasn't running for president before the election. There are claims of Trump not paying some of his contractors, or the whole Trump University debacle (I'm sure there is more, I just haven't bothered to do my research), but none of them garnered national attention until he ran for president. The media scrutinized Trump and Clinton because they were running for the highest office in the states. I think this is a problem today. The average person today doesn't expect to pay for news. They expect for news to be entertaining. To tip my hat to Trump, I think he understands this and is the reason why the media has seen record viewership since. You could argue that's how he captured global attention, he's simply good at being a showman. We have short attention spans, and that's troubling. It's the reason why people associate Buzzfeed with kitten videos and "which Gilmore Girl are you?" questionnaires, not actual journalism. But that's the world the press lives in, nobody buys the paper anymore, so it's all about click bait and earning pennies on the dollar through banner ads or some ridiculous method like that. Is it a problem? Hell yeah. Press needs to do actual journalism and we need to pay for it. Do I have any ideas on how to fix that? No, lol. I think it's only going to get worse, to be entirely honest. Alternative news sites from both sides, without the stringent fact checking (or even, blatantly, false facts) will probably gain in popularity. Trump is a godsend to the media, though you won't ever hear the media say it. I think the Trump presidency may be the last gasp for a traditional press that existed in the times of our fathers' generation. What that means for the future, I'm not sure. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsPigeon Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 I'm finding the left's constant meltdowns and freakouts hilariously amusing to look at now. This reminds me of the time when the right melted down and whined about Obama. While the left has reason to "freakout" (considering the clear authoritarian shift in American politics being completely against the ideals America was founded on, as outlined by the constitution which grants many libertarian personal freedoms), while the right didn't really have a reason to freakout since Obama didn't take away people's guns, it certainly is amusing. And just like children, the minute they get what they want, they belittle those that do not agree. Not only are conservatives horrible losers, they also are bad at winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) This reminds me of the time when the right melted down and whined about Obama. While the left has reason to "freakout" (considering the clear authoritarian shift in American politics being completely against the ideals America was founded on, as outlined by the constitution which grants many libertarian personal freedoms), while the right didn't really have a reason to freakout since Obama didn't take away people's guns, it certainly is amusing. And just like children, the minute they get what they want, they belittle those that do not agree. Not only are conservatives very horrible losers, they also are bad at winning. Pathetic,you libtards whine and !@#$ about everything you don't like,the right had every right to be unhappy with Obama's policies (gun control,gay rights,massively increasing the debt,inflaming racial tensions,etc),but you don't see the conservatives protesting and rioting about it,you people are behaving as if Trump is literally Hitler,and can't be mature enough to accept the fact that you will not always get your way,it's getting quite annoying,can you tell one "authoritarian" thing that Trump has done? Darned Keyboard Warriors,complaining about everything. Edited March 2, 2017 by Vincent de Beer 3 Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) Not only are conservatives horrible losers, they also are bad at winning. You should really check out how the left is taking some huge losses Edited March 2, 2017 by Vincent de Beer 2 Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.