Jump to content

Minor Politics & News


Dad

Recommended Posts

Was there a problem when president obama bashed the Juridical branch? Some president even ignore court ruling or threaten to?

 

Or is this a new standard for this president. Get out of here with that double standard. 

 

When the news is fake, you call it fake. It is Lugenpresse, but if it makes you feel better, I can use the russian term for 'fake new" given the American and German ones upset you

 

Also newsflash. CNN and Hillary were the ones that started the who term "fake new" post election. Not POTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We're gonna have to discuss this in detail when I'm able. Discussing points that are valid in the thread and are contributing to the topics at hand shouldn't be prohibited. But going off into a random tangent, spamming, etc is something I've tried to be more strict on in the thread. It's not a thread to post topics and say nothing. Discussion is warranted when it actually is on topic.

 

I'll be in touch.

Should have responded to this as soon as it was posted, but I'll say this now. If you wish to post in either this thread or the administration thread, go ahead, just as long as your posts are relevant to both topics. For now, let's avoid spamming the report center, otherwise the Trump Administration Actions is nothing more than posting links, yet prohibiting people from discussing those actions.

 

Was there a problem when president obama bashed the Juridical branch? Some president even ignore court ruling or threaten to?

 

Or is this a new standard for this president. Get out of here with that double standard. 

 

When the news is fake, you call it fake. It is Lugenpresse, but if it makes you feel better, I can use the russian term for 'fake new" given the American and German ones upset you

 

Also newsflash. CNN and Hillary were the ones that started the who term "fake new" post election. Not POTUS.

If I'm bringing up Trump's problems, I'm not turning a blind eye to past presidents, nor am I inventing a new standard for the sole purpose of skewing it against Trump. Pointing to other presidents is just deflection to distract from when Trump does it. If you want to talk about what happened in past administrations, then do so, but that does mean I cannot criticize Trump for when he does it.

 

Using a Russian term for "fake news" is ironic at best, since Trump is calling news "fake" because people have criticized his administration's ties to Russia. "Lügenpresse" is not actually pointing out genuine flaws in the media. Why would American people specifically use a word popularized by Hitler, and which Germany itself considers taboo, instead of just… you know, calling it "fake news"? What's the point in relying on a word that's primarily associated with Nazis? It says the person saying "Lügenpresse" is willing to revive Nazi rhetoric, yet they are doing nothing to point out how the news is fake. They're just saying that the news is fake, not because it is fake, but because they don't want people to know that the news is accurate.

 

Funny how CNN is what Trump dismisses as being "fake news", and speaking of CNN, they ran an article about Trump raising money to fight the "corrupt" media. That was in August, by the way, which is even earlier than when Clinton was criticizing fake news. His claims about "fake news" are an extension of his past behavior.

 

Oh, and speaking of CNN, for all of Trump's talk about trying to avoid power structures, it's pretty obvious that the only reason he opposes AT&T acquiring Time Warner is that he doesn't like CNN. AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson even pointed out that it would make no sense for Time Warner to spin off CNN in order to get approval. I'm sure there are legitimate concerns to have with a AT&T / Time Warner merger, and how consolidation reduces competition and encourages monopolies, but for Trump, fear of monopoly is just a pretense for his hostility towards CNN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have responded to this as soon as it was posted, but I'll say this now. If you wish to post in either this thread or the administration thread, go ahead, just as long as your posts are relevant to both topics. For now, let's avoid spamming the report center, otherwise the Trump Administration Actions is nothing more than posting links, yet prohibiting people from discussing those actions.

 

If I'm bringing up Trump's problems, I'm not turning a blind eye to past presidents, nor am I inventing a new standard for the sole purpose of skewing it against Trump. Pointing to other presidents is just deflection to distract from when Trump does it. If you want to talk about what happened in past administrations, then do so, but that does mean I cannot criticize Trump for when he does it.

 

Using a Russian term for "fake news" is ironic at best, since Trump is calling news "fake" because people have criticized his administration's ties to Russia. "Lügenpresse" is not actually pointing out genuine flaws in the media. Why would American people specifically use a word popularized by Hitler, and which Germany itself considers taboo, instead of just… you know, calling it "fake news"? What's the point in relying on a word that's primarily associated with Nazis? It says the person saying "Lügenpresse" is willing to revive Nazi rhetoric, yet they are doing nothing to point out how the news is fake. They're just saying that the news is fake, not because it is fake, but because they don't want people to know that the news is accurate.

 

Funny how CNN is what Trump dismisses as being "fake news", and speaking of CNN, they ran an article about Trump raising money to fight the "corrupt" media. That was in August, by the way, which is even earlier than when Clinton was criticizing fake news. His claims about "fake news" are an extension of his past behavior.

 

Oh, and speaking of CNN, for all of Trump's talk about trying to avoid power structures, it's pretty obvious that the only reason he opposes AT&T acquiring Time Warner is that he doesn't like CNN. AT&T Chairman Randall Stephenson even pointed out that it would make no sense for Time Warner to spin off CNN in order to get approval. I'm sure there are legitimate concerns to have with a AT&T / Time Warner merger, and how consolidation reduces competition and encourages monopolies, but for Trump, fear of monopoly is just a pretense for his hostility towards CNN.

See not many trump voters would use the term "Lügenpresse" for one most of them don't know german. And for the portion of us that do, typing the umlaut is cumbersome. 

 

Most people DO just use good old fashion English "fake news" If you wanna call every Nazi like spencer who uses Lugenpresse a Trump supporter, I get to call all the women marching in the woman's march with "Eradicate Men" signs Obama supporters. Neither are right, so stop trying to conflate them.

 

I'm personally fond of "Poddel'nyy Novosti" but that's just me.

 

Looking through your posts, I haven't seen your ringing critique of Obama SOTU trashing of SCOTUS. It DOES seem like this a new found passion you've found- defending the Judicial Branch.

 

I'd be hostile to CNN too if they focused a good 20 minutes on a dozen protesters over 9000+ supporters at a rally, but that's just me. 

 


 

Admin topic to to detail the happenings. If something bothers people enough about a topic, they can use said links to make a new topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See not many trump voters would use the term "Lügenpresse" for one most of them don't know german. And for the portion of us that do, typing the umlaut is cumbersome. 

 

Most people DO just use good old fashion English "fake news" If you wanna call every Nazi like spencer who uses Lugenpresse a Trump supporter, I get to call all the women marching in the woman's march with "Eradicate Men" signs Obama supporters. Neither are right, so stop trying to conflate them.

 

I'm personally fond of "Poddel'nyy Novosti" but that's just me.

 

Looking through your posts, I haven't seen your ringing critique of Obama SOTU trashing of SCOTUS. It DOES seem like this a new found passion you've found- defending the Judicial Branch.

 

I'd be hostile to CNN too if they focused a good 20 minutes on a dozen protesters over 9000+ supporters at a rally, but that's just me. 

 


 

Admin topic to to detail the happenings. If something bothers people enough about a topic, they can use said links to make a new topic

 

Of course I'll defend the Judicial Branch. Is that a problem?

 

Point to people who have been citing "Lügenpresse" to describe American news, or call criticism of Trump "fake news", and tell me that they are not Trump supporters. Prove to me that I am conflating two separate groups. Trump really isn't in any position to complain about "fake news" when he has to fabricate a story about a terrorist attack in Sweden to justify Muslim bans.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/trump-cites-non-existent-terrorist-attack-last-night-in-sweden-to-justify-muslim-ban-at-florida-rally/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/19/donald-trump-sweden-attack-carl-bildt/98127056/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/trump-refers-non-existent-refugee-incident-sweden-rally/

 

As each of those articles point out, Kellyanne Conway's fake claim of "Bowling Green Massacre" tricked people, which they used as evidence of

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/679376/more-than-half-trump-voters-say-nonexistent-bowling-green-massacre-proof-trumps-immigration-ban-necessary

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-voters-bowling-green-masscre-justifies-travel-ban-article-1.2969228

 

Trump is fighting fake news. He's the one causing it, and people are calling him out when he does so. They label the media and courts as "corrupt" because they're surprised that they can actually be held accountable for what they say and do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I'll defend the Judicial Branch. Is that a problem?

 

Point to people who have been citing "Lügenpresse" to describe American news, or call criticism of Trump "fake news", and tell me that they are not Trump supporters. Prove to me that I am conflating two separate groups. Trump really isn't in any position to complain about "fake news" when he has to fabricate a story about a terrorist attack in Sweden to justify Muslim bans.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/trump-cites-non-existent-terrorist-attack-last-night-in-sweden-to-justify-muslim-ban-at-florida-rally/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/19/donald-trump-sweden-attack-carl-bildt/98127056/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/19/trump-refers-non-existent-refugee-incident-sweden-rally/

 

As each of those articles point out, Kellyanne Conway's fake claim of "Bowling Green Massacre" tricked people, which they used as evidence of

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/679376/more-than-half-trump-voters-say-nonexistent-bowling-green-massacre-proof-trumps-immigration-ban-necessary

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-voters-bowling-green-masscre-justifies-travel-ban-article-1.2969228

 

Trump is fighting fake news. He's the one causing it, and people are calling him out when he does so. They label the media and courts as "corrupt" because they're surprised that they can actually be held accountable for what they say and do.

Wrong. He did not say there was an attack in sweden

 

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/02/19/derp-journos-claim-trump-referred-to-nonexistent-terror-attack-in-sweden-transcript-proves-otherwise/

 

C5CGsI4WQAAhfzH.jpg

 

Here's what he actually said

 

Citing 3-4 links from the media echo chamber doesn't make it more valid mate

 

A lot of things happened last night in sweden. But an attach didn't, nor did the POTUS say such an attack happened

 


 

@Lugenpresse

 

Sure some people say it, and I'll even give it to you they're all trump voters, Richard Spencer couldn't get 100 people to his NeoNazi rally in DC before you idiots blasted his mug on CNN for a week straight. 

 

Labeling the views of a new NeoNazi dumbfucks as Trump voters is like me saying the Misandrist male genocide advocates at the women's march were Obama supporters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They're having problems like they never thought possible." What "problems"? What are we supposed to keep our country safe "from"? Why immediately follow it up with citing Brussels, which actually was a terrorist attack? And besides, Kellyanne Conway still outright used the phrase "Bowling Green Massacre". People are used to his administration making up tragedies to pretend that they're in the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They're having problems like they never thought possible." What "problems"? What are we supposed to keep our country safe "from"? Why immediately follow it up with citing Brussels, which actually was a terrorist attack? And besides, Kellyanne Conway still outright used the phrase "Bowling Green Massacre". People are used to his administration making up tragedies to pretend that they're in the right.

I'm not gonna defend what Kellyanne said. She apologized. There was a attempted attack at BG. Was foiled. She was wrong.

 

What POTUS did was not the same. What problems?

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/763354/Migrants-blame-serious-crimes-Sweden-police-officer-blasts-rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this doesn't derail the current conversation, but apparently this happened: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204

 

Warning: the subjects in that link are not for those under the age of 18

Well fu.ck. Milo's apparently a pedo apologist now, despite a distinct lack of source videos of his so-called avocations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well fu.ck. Milo's apparently a pedo apologist now, despite a distinct lack of source videos of his so-called avocations.

 

Look, it's simple. Make an offensive joke, but when people actually, you know, get offended, just blame their "interpretations" so that people are somehow wrong for actually pointing out when you are in the wrong. That way, your offensive behavior gets a free pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know enough about Milo to tell that him actually apologizing instead of doubling down carries some legitimacy.

 

I mean, he's a dickhead with awful beliefs, sure, but he's not -that- bad as a person.

Again, he was mocking the fact that he got abused as a kid. The whole, I give better head cause of father something, was mocking his own molestation. He should have a right to mock that

Right is spineless cowards as usual who gave into their neocon pearl clutchers. If you wanna know why I'm not a republican, it's cause sheet like this shows the GOP has no balls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll is so biased I'm wetting myself.

 

It's so painfully obvious how they want you to answer, so I went with everything they wouldn't want to hear. For the news sources, I said I read The New York Times and The Washington Post.

 

I laughed at the bit about obstruction.

 

I went with "Other opinion" and said that it did happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

poll poll poll

 

Makes sense. People 65+ would've been born in the 1950's or sooner and lived through the Cold War, which is obviously going to ingrain some anti-Russian sentiments considering the propaganda at the time those dang commies

 

So, of course there's going to be divisions by age because of how much the political climate at a time of one's life, especially one so strong as the Cold War, is going to change a person's outlook on issues and other countries. If anything, it's just interesting to see that in action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. People 65+ would've been born in the 1950's or sooner and lived through the Cold War, which is obviously going to ingrain some anti-Russian sentiments considering the propaganda at the time those dang commies

 

So, of course there's going to be divisions by age because of how much the political climate at a time of one's life, especially one so strong as the Cold War, is going to change a person's outlook on issues and other countries. If anything, it's just interesting to see that in action.

I would like to see how Democrat Millennials see Russia too

 

Given that 40% Voted for POTUS, and ~53 Voted for Hillary it might be interesting to see if partisanship can pull them against old convictions

 

(Not this is GOP Millennial, and not every GOP millennial voted for POTUS, nor ever Millennial who voted for potus was GOP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...