Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Parkbandit]

Also, Acosta didn’t have a question, he did not like the President using the term “invasion” for the caravan. That’s not a question, that is him grandstanding that it’s not an invasion.

[Methais]

I think Acosta was being annoying and grandstanding, but I also think he had a legitimate question at the core, about why Trump was so invested in depicting a migrant caravan as an invasion. Obviously, he was fear-mongering as a distraction from key midterms issues, and equally obviously, it backfired given the election results.

The caravan is a bunch of bullshit. They're sporting smart phones and look fit and all that shit. They're fine. They're just being a bunch of dicks wanting free stuff and the entire thing is a farce from any sort of "refugee" standpoint. And if you think any democrats truly "care" about those people, then you're extremely gullible.

Or is it typical for people fleeing from a shitty country that's doing shitty things to its people, to still sport that country's flag and proudly wave it back and forth on your way to the US from the country that they say is so bad that they had to leave?

What's really at stake here is the representation of events. Trump has proven over and over that he'll just make up his own version of events with no evidence whatsoever for whatever purpose he has in mind. A free press threatens that ability, and so he attacks it and tries to delegitimize it.

Maybe. Most of the media, including CNN and Acosta, are guilty of the same thing, on a 24/7 cycle. Know who else lies? Every other president in history. Obama was notorious for making up his own version of everything too, yet I don't recall you ever having a problem with it. I'm sure in your eyes, Obama never told a lie.

Now, I've answered your question, so you tell me, do agree with Trump's comment in the exchange with Acosta that CNN is "fake news" and "the enemy of the people?" Do you agree that Trump should be able to say whatever he wants whenever he wants regardless of the truth?

Sure why not. Everyone else does it, including CNN. And CNN reports a lot of bullshit. Is reporting on things that aren't true real news? Is omitting any positive Trump news good news while going ape shit for days/weeks/months/years on anything and everything negative about Trump considered good reporting? Or even real reporting? CNN is basically a bunch of opinion shows masquerading as "news."

Were you equally outraged when Obama lied nonstop for 8 years, banning Fox News from some event(s), etc? I doubt it.

Trump and people like him, including Marco Rubio and Rick Scott during the Florida elections, who were baselessly accusing the Democrats of fraud, are undermining faith in public institutions and feeding a black hole of disinformation. The dangerous thing is that people believe them, and that pits Americans against each and against the nation itself. If (and hopefully when) Trump loses in 2020, I am very afraid that he will declare the election illegitimate and try to rile people up to support him, and God knows where that will lead. Are you not concerned about that?

No, I couldn't give two fucks because Trump is likely to get re-elcted anyway, and you didn't seem to be concerned about it when Hillary tried to pull the same thing after she got rekt, and there isn't going to be war in the streets like you're implying. And if there was, it would be guns vs. dildos and pussy hats. Have fun with that.

Both sides are full of shit. Your side is just a lot more full of shit and most of the policies your side supports are shit, and "by any means necessary" is basically the left's motto these days, which would include spreading fake news. You just happen to have more news stations on your side than the other side to do most of the dirty work and only report on negative stories and ignore any positive story because making Trump look bad comes before literally everything else.

And you're ok with all of that.

Trump lies.

CNN lies, primarily about Trump.

The rest of the MSM lies, primarily about Trump.

Your problem is you only care when Trump does it and everyone else gets a pass as long as you don't disagree with their politics, or at least as long as you share Trump butthurt. That's why it took you being asked several times just to get a straight yes or no answer that wasn't tap dancing all over the place out of Acosta being disruptive. Which not surprisingly, you saw no problem with and didn't think he was being disruptive at all, even when he started yelling over the other reporter who got the mic after he eventually had to give it up.

[BriarFox]

Yes, and according to that "full definition" they used, any protest/riot after an election will always be "right wing".

I think that misses the forest for the trees. The second sentence in the definition makes it clear what they're associating with that perspective. In any case, there's a breakdown in a chart in the 2010 section of the various attacks if you want to go look at it.

[Methais]

Listening to Trump's rhetoric and taking it seriously isn't fear-mongering; it's honesty. Expecting that his words will never lead to actions, on the other hand, is delusion.

How so if "All Trump does is lie!!!!!"?

[Gelston]

I think that misses the forest for the trees. The second sentence in the definition makes it clear what they're associating with that perspective. In any case, there's a breakdown in a chart in the 2010 section of the various attacks if you want to go look at it.

It says "characterized by" not wholly inclusive of and also includes "reverence for individual liberty, and/or belief in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty." I'm pretty sure a lot of those riots and protests were built on the conceived notion that he would strip segments of people of their rights somehow and that he'd weaken liberties for other segments.

[Methais]

I just noticed you tried to say Acosta was being "polite" in that post.....






























































LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO]LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLO

[Methais]

The real threat of violence comes from the right. Actual violence though, comes from the left.

Fixed.

[BriarFox]

The caravan is a bunch of bullshit. They're sporting smart phones and look fit and all that shit. They're fine. They're just being a bunch of dicks wanting free stuff and the entire thing is a farce from any sort of "refugee" standpoint. And if you think any democrats truly "care" about those people, then you're extremely gullible.

Or is it typical for people fleeing from a shitty country that's doing shitty things to its people, to still sport that country's flag and proudly wave it back and forth on your way to the US from the country that they say is so bad that they had to leave?



Maybe. Most of the media, including CNN and Acosta, are guilty of the same thing, on a 24/7 cycle. Know who else lies? Every other president in history. Obama was notorious for making up his own version of everything too, yet I don't recall you ever having a problem with it. I'm sure in your eyes, Obama never told a lie.



Sure why not. Everyone else does it, including CNN. And CNN reports a lot of bullshit. Is reporting on things that aren't true real news? Is omitting any positive Trump news good news while going ape shit for days/weeks/months/years on anything and everything negative about Trump considered good reporting? Or even real reporting? CNN is basically a bunch of opinion shows masquerading as "news."

Were you equally outraged when Obama lied nonstop for 8 years, banning Fox News from some event(s), etc? I doubt it.



No, I couldn't give two fucks because Trump is likely to get re-elcted anyway, and you didn't seem to be concerned about it when Hillary tried to pull the same thing after she got rekt, and there isn't going to be war in the streets like you're implying. And if there was, it would be guns vs. dildos and pussy hats. Have fun with that.

Both sides are full of shit. Your side is just a lot more full of shit and most of the policies your side supports are shit, and "by any means necessary" is basically the left's motto these days, which would include spreading fake news. You just happen to have more news stations on your side than the other side to do most of the dirty work and only report on negative stories and ignore any positive story because making Trump look bad comes before literally everything else.

And you're ok with all of that.

Trump lies.

CNN lies, primarily about Trump.

The rest of the MSM lies, primarily about Trump.

Your problem is you only care when Trump does it and everyone else gets a pass as long as you don't disagree with their politics, or at least as long as you share Trump butthurt. That's why it took you being asked several times just to get a straight yes or no answer that wasn't tap dancing all over the place out of Acosta being disruptive. Which not surprisingly, you saw no problem with and didn't think he was being disruptive at all, even when he started yelling over the other reporter who got the mic after he eventually had to give it up.

I do not think there's a moral equivalency here. Sensationalism and negativity sell, but I also think most media outlets strive for the truth. Trump, on the other hand, just makes crap up constantly. So, they're not the same. Even if they were, just because the "other guy" does something, that doesn't make it ok for the other side to do it. Confirmation bias is definitely a problem, though, on all sides.

As for Obama lying--about what? Obama wasn't perfect, but he was pretty damn good.

[BriarFox]

It says "characterized by" not wholly inclusive of and also includes "reverence for individual liberty, and/or belief in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty." I'm pretty sure a lot of those riots and protests were built on the conceived notion that he would strip segments of people of their rights somehow and that he'd weaken liberties for other segments.

Right, but it's about what kind of right one thinks he's stripping away. Can we generally agree that discrimination on sex, religion, etc is a problem, and that it's not a "right" to tell Muslims not to live in your town or some such nonsense?

[Parkbandit]

As for Obama lying--about what? Obama wasn't perfect, but he was pretty damn good.

He was a terrible President for domestic and foreign affairs... but yes, he was damn good at reading the promoter..