|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 5, 2017 18:59:55 GMT -5
Trump's hatred of Obama is well-known and documented and this bullshit, baseless and unsubstantiated accusation against his predecessor is the proof of it. It makes ZERO sense for Obama to wiretap Trump's phones. What good would that do? If anything was learned that could harm Trump's campaign, why wasn't it leaked to the press? Why do something so overtly dumb and hard to conceal? Answer: President Obama wouldn't. Unless he had a damn good reason and Obama would need a better one than trying to get Hillary Clinton electon. I don't care what the idiots who believe everything Trump says think about this to the extent they can think at all. No, who I want to man up and answer the American people are all those Republican suck-ups who have gone along with whatever batshit insanity Trump spews out into the ether? Those are the feet I want to hold to the fire.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 4, 2017 18:42:47 GMT -5
Here's the full tweet for those of us who don't follow President Pussygrabber.Nothing that comes out of this bad (or sick) guy's mouth surprises or shocks me. Whatever he sees on Fox and whatever Steve Bannon tells him is the headline on Breitbart is what he believes. Obama tapped Trump's phone prior to the election? Then why didn't he drop the dirt he dug up on Donald before the election? Whatever comes out of Trump's filthy sewer is a damned lie. He is a complete psychopath.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 4, 2017 1:24:06 GMT -5
That's where we see things much differently. You think it's a terrible thing the free speech rights of a White supremacist are being suppressed. I don't give a damn about that. To me, the far greater offense is Murray's hate speech is provided a forum merely because it is cloaked in a far more palatable form than a white sheet or a swastizka.
Free speech is not freedom from responsibility for that speech. You're offended by Murray being shouted down. I'm offended in his eyes I, and anyone like me is automatically inferior to him because we weren't born White.
I don't worry about bigots feeling persecuted. That's a luxury I leave to others who can afford it because it's not their intelligence and humanity being denied and demeaned.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 19:49:02 GMT -5
And it only took 800 words to get to that part. 701 of those words belong to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Since you hadn't done it, I felt it necessary to establish Charles Murray isn't simply a dotty old man with some cracked beliefs, but a fucking racist prick who has established himself as being richly deserving of being protested.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 18:48:56 GMT -5
Great to to see that freedom of thought and freedom of association are alive and well. It sure is. So is White Supremacy.If Charles Murray were a card-carrying, cross-burning Neo-Nazi, KKK, White Nationalist like David Duke, there would be no question of any respectable institution of higher learning declining to grant him a forum to spew his bigoted filth. However, because Murray wears a tie and a suit and comes across as educated, sophisticated and genteel, the junk science of his debunked eugenics is somehow considered acceptable. It is not. Racism whether it comes from a sheet-wearing slob or an educated sociologist is still noxious and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt. But not with violence. So before anyone gets their undies in a wad and tries to spin my words into saying something they are not, let me make myself perfectly clear: I denounce any attempt to physically assault, or harm Murray or hurt anyone caught up in the melee and anyone caught for attempting to do so should face the full force of the law. This is not a man who should be regarded with sympathy. I want Charles Murray exposed as a fraud and treated like a pariah, not made into a martyr.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 16:32:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 15:22:11 GMT -5
He was meeting in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee? What's worrisome about that? He was not a Trump surrogate at that time. I stand by my assertion that the Sessions issue is much ado about very little. Which is what I said the first time - "much ado about very little". I was specific there on purpose. Yes there should be an investigation. And no Sessions should not be involved. But... I am still waiting for evidence to come forth that there was nefarious contact between Trump surrogates and Russians during the election. So far, the House Intelligence Committee says they have none. I am forced to conclude, again, much ado about very little. But if we can take a Trump admin official down in the process, hey why not? *hopefully obvious sarcasm* If it's "much ado about very little" why did Sessions recuse himself? When the Attorney General has to step aside from overseeing an investigation it seems like much ado about something. There should be an bipartisan commission and maybe an independent prosecutor looking into the ties between the Russians and the Trump Administration, but as long as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can resist, there won't be. They'd rather focus on destroying Obamacare, gutting EPA regulations so corporations can dump pollutants into rivers and getting their brag on about Trump's speech to Congress which proved he can read a teleprompter and stay on message. Well, we'll see how long the Repubs can play "stall ball" waiting for the news cycle to turn its tsete fly attention span to another celebrity break-up or screw up at an awards show. Maybe they'll even get away with this b.s. Maybe they won't.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 3, 2017 13:16:54 GMT -5
Of course Sessions should resign and if he had any ethics he would, but then nobody in the Trump Administration knows jack about ethics because they never received the training.If skeevy shit is happening in the Trump Administration, go ahead and blame the media or the opposition party or call it "fake news" but it won't change the fact that the Attorney General of the United States lied in his testimony to the U.S. Senate and that is against the law. Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador and then denied any contact. How should we regard a perjurer? Let's ask Jeff Sessions:Michael Flynn had to resign over his undisclosed meetings with the Russians. Now it's time for Sessions to do likewise. If Sessions were a Democrat the long knives would already be sharpened and out for his blood. NOBODY who raised hell about Hillary Clinton's damn emails who isn't raising hell about the Trumpettes playing footsie with the Kremlin has a leg to stand on. Your moral compass is broken. Put in the shop and shut the hell up until you get it fixed.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 2, 2017 17:49:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 2, 2017 17:46:48 GMT -5
Why does W look so much older and I look exactly the same as I always have? Try being President of the United States for eight years and see how much you age. Dubya has a fondness for the strong sistas. It's not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 2, 2017 9:48:03 GMT -5
So... it's misleading for... people who gather their "facts" from headlines. What is the real problem there? The headlines, or the subset of people who believe they contain the entirety of the information available? With whom lies the responsibility for people who only read headlines? Can't both be "real problems"? People should read articles, not just assume the titles are true statements. Media outlets shouldn't use false or misleading headlines/titles. People don't read articles if the headline doesn't get their attention. In this particular case, it succeeded. Maybe some actually read the freakin' article too. A headline is not fraud, like that commercial picturing that Big Mac isn't fraud. Everyone knows Big Macs don't look like that. I mean, sure, it would be great if there was no such thing as exaggeration or sensationalism. But the best way to get rid of those things is for people to get wiser. And again, this is a not new phenomenon. You say "just a headline," but again, where's the line? How about if the piece used the headline "Melania offers sex to Iowans in exchange for their support"? That would be just a headline, too. Imo, if you're okay with obvious misrepresentation (which I think is a polite way to say "lying") in headlines, then you're okay with flagrant, borderline libelous lies in headlines. It's really not much of a slope. If Melania Trump was offering blowjobs for votes, your hypothetical headline would be okay. If she's not then it wouldn't be. The WaPo article is factually true if not totally and 100 percent accurate. It is possible to have one without the other. Unless one's expectations are for a perfection in others they have not achieved in themselves. This is just media bashing cloaked as so much pearl-clutching and fainting couches over a headline. BFD.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 18:59:21 GMT -5
The problem as I see it is that the Washington Post, as a mainstream newspaper, should be accurate and factual in its reporting. (Unless we're talking an editorial or opinion piece.) That title discussed above seems intentionally misleading, and I don't think it's for clicks; I think it's part of a concerted effort to bring down Trump. What will bring down Trump is his own multiple failures of character compounded by policy with a big ol' serving of that old-time corruption and sleaze. The only part the media will have in it is to report on it and that's what really upsetting Trump supporters. The cross sections is of voters who voted for Trump or for Hillary, or as you say not at all. And of those who voted for Trump, they can all hardly be characterized as regretful. So the piece is not specifically about voters at all. It's certainly not specifically about Trump voters. And it's really not specifically about Trump voters who are "already disappointed." Yet the title says that the story is about the last. It could just as easily be "These Iowans voted for Clinton and many don't regret it." Or "These Iowans didn't vote at all, so screw their opinions." Those would be as accurate as the title that was used...which is to say not accurate at all. Yeah, well if you say so. You're still griping about the title of a story more than you are about the accuracy and facts of the story itself. The only reason anyone is still discussing it at all is a few right-wingers out there and in here are all hyped about it. The Right loves to moan about the press being mean to them even when they now have their publications catering to their particular political preferences. Sad. Let's revisit this subject in----oh, say a week---and see if anybody even recalls why this was a thing in the first place. By then, Trump will have insulted another ally, issued another ridiculous executive order or Tweeted something stupid. Likely, all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 16:02:04 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure you'd like to dispense with the Spectator in its entirety because it is a bullshit, right-wing rag with a pronounced ideological bias and serious deficiencies in basic journalistic ethics, but you did more than note it, you quoted from a highly disreputable source. Actually, I don't want to dispense with it all. But you seem unable to get past your feelings in this regard. My observations of the article happened to be echoed by the American Spectator piece, so I linked to it and quoted from it--and noted it was a partisan source--since the writer was seeing the same things as me. Your counter to these points is--again--weak, imo. The operative word here is "IMO (In My Opinion)." Which hearkens back to what I've already said about partisans. Everybody is one. Doesn't make me automatically right or you automatically wrong, but it does mean nobody's operating on a totally clean slate. However, some partisanship outstrips others, and R. Emmett Tyrrell's publication is evidence of it. You know me so well. My argument is the title of the article sometimes bears little resemblance to the article and when it is particularly egregious perhaps a case can be made that is is manipulative or deceptive. Not knowing what the editorial process is at the WaPo (I have a friend who works there I can ask), I don't know how many hands and eyes any story passes through before it gets to print or online, but I'm pretty certain the editor read the flipping story before titling it or sending it off to a copy editor to tidy up. Would " A Few Iowans..." or "One or Three or So Iowans..." worked better than "Many Iowans...?" Possibly, but "many" catches the eye in a way "few" does not. Perhaps a better title would be "Some Iowans Who Voted for Trump Now Having Second Thoughts" or maybe not. Once you drill down into the actual story there's a cross-section of voters and non-voters expressing how they feel about the Trump Presidency. I fail to see why the larger story has getting lost in the hubbub over a less than totally accurate title.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 14:59:21 GMT -5
While the Washington pundits are all a'flutter and Republicans are relieved Trump didn't cuss out anybody or drop his pants and moon the audience, what's been overlooked is Trump's latest salvo in his war against immigrants. Do immigrants commit crimes? Yes, they do, but statistically, immigrants commit less crimes. So why is Trump creating a special agency when the "problem" is so small? What about violence against immigrants? Why isn't VOICE set up to protect immigrants from crimes against them? What is Trump doing to protect innocents like Srinivas Kuchibhotla who was gunned down by a moron who screamed "Get out of my country!" before shooting the engineer from India. Trump wants to use fear of immigrants to unleash a new front on his attacks against them and while he's doing so, the nativist, xenophobic racists are getting a head start on the ethnic cleansing and Making America White Again.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 13:38:55 GMT -5
Your latter remarks put the lie to the former. No, they don't. I am still interested in the answer. No. You're really not. Thank you. Fixed that for ya. What makes you think that? Not worth the effort and certainly not worth the time. Whose "truth?" Yours? How ambitious! How's that working out for ya?
|
|