A Question For Trump Supporters. Is Everyone Lying?

[PACOX]

Shout out to the Trump supporters who took their time to comment.

Follow up question

what makes Trump more credible than others?

[Thanatoss]

Shout out to the Trump supporters who took their time to comment.

Follow up question

what makes Trump more credible than others?

Personally I don't think Trump is any more credible than others but I call everyone's credibility into question. Politics and everything surrounding it is all about people pushing their (or the person paying them) agenda. The real question is what is the agenda they're trying to push with what they're doing/saying

[Glorious Leader]

That's bullshit. It's not your patriotic duty to blindly support the President just because he won.

Right. Remember when it was the height of patriotism to dissent against the merciless communist muslim kenyan born obama?

Remember when you were a traitorus liberal when you wouldnt support bush and the war in iraq?

[Shadowferal]

I'm surprised people are still giving that Confederate Wannabe the time of day since you're more likely to convince a brick wall it's made of straw than to get him to admit he's wrong.

Anyone that calls taxation "theft" isn't worth the time since they're pretty much crazy. #sad

[Xirrohon]

The President has been getting more negative press than usual lately. His list of allegations are but not limited to:

Contact with Russian persons during election campaign

Knowledge of Flynn's misconduct with the Russians

Attempts ti coerce Comey's investigation

Firing Comey to snuff out the Russian investigation

Firing Comey in favor of Russian contemporaries

Asking intelligence officials to ease off the Russian investigation

Barring national media but allowing foreign media to events

Disclosure of sensitive information to foreign agents

and

Russia caught attempting to sway the US election


Sobwe have a huge list of claims and allegations. Many are supported by highly respected officals or retired officals from both parties. Some with paper trails and data to support them.
But will all of that, many Trump die hards are reluctant to accept any of the above as true or its not important.

I would like some insight on these views. If none of the above is true then we're looking at the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of the US.

Help me understand how Trumps opponents were able to keep something so big under wraps for so long? Why wait until he is in office with a national backing to try to remove him? Wouldn't it have been easier to just steal the nomination from him?

Why isn't collusion with Russian a troubling national issue?

Where are the articles dispelling the myths? I would like to read them. There should be conservative outlets that contradict the lies and slanders put out by the MSM?, right?

I just want to know that Im not being duped by the MSM.

Russia, Russia, Russia! Learn more about Russia, tonight on the all Russian investigation network.

[Jeezy911]

As a Trump supporter we dont listen to the MSM talkingbpoints. Sorry.

[Lenonis]

As a Trump supporter we dont listen to the MSM talkingbpoints. Sorry.

You mean...you don't listen to anything other than right wing propaganda. As evidenced by your ill-informed postings on these forums. The problem with not believing anything other than what you want to is that your world view becomes increasingly disconnected from reality. And yes, yes, you can go ahead and skip the "NO U" retort.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The evidence is there, it looks like you didn't read it and just like to Cherry pick

Googling "Obama obstructing justice" and "Hillary obstructing justice" and linking blogs without even reading them (or you read them and you actually believe the drivvel and conspiracies therein) is not a great way to go about a discussion. If you can't verify that it happened, or there's uncertainty that it's even obstruction of justice, you don't have a case.

On the other hand, asking someone to end an investigation into your own corruption, then firing that person when they don't, is obstruction of justice. I realize you may agree with Trump's actions because you don't want to see your dear leader removed from office, but here in the real world, it's obstruction.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong again. The aca Is an obstruction of justice. Taxation is theft.

The 16th amendment disagrees with you. Why do you hate the constitution?

[Jeezy911]

You mean...you don't listen to anything other than right wing propaganda. As evidenced by your ill-informed postings on these forums. The problem with not believing anything other than what you want to is that your world view becomes increasingly disconnected from reality. And yes, yes, you can go ahead and skip the "NO U" retort.

Like the reality trump is the president?

[Lenonis]

Like the reality trump is the president?

Yes? And? Contrary to popular belief there is pretty much no one who doesn't recognize that he's president. Don't mistake rhetoric like "no my president" from an actual lack of realizing he's president. They may question the legitimacy of the election, but then again Trump himself has questioned the legitimacy of the election.

I mean really. THAT is your response? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Orbitus]

Like the reality trump is the president?

You mean a president that has literally accomplished nothing but millions in tax dollars wasted to his country clubs, millions wasted in defending his wife that wants nothing to do with him that is trying her fucking hardest to stay away from him, and 2 failed travel bans and a healthcare bill that doesn't help anyone but his 1% cronies? Yeah, he will be lucky to make it past his first term to try to run for his 2nd.

[Allybeboba]

You mean...you don't listen to anything other than right wing propaganda. As evidenced by your ill-informed postings on these forums. The problem with not believing anything other than what you want to is that your world view becomes increasingly disconnected from reality. And yes, yes, you can go ahead and skip the "NO U" retort.

Couldn't the same be said for both ends of the political spectrum?

[Lenonis]

Couldn't the same be said for both ends of the political spectrum?

Sure. But that's irrelevant, especially in the context of talking about MSM which in no way shape or form is at one end of a political spectrum.

[Allybeboba]

Sure. But that's irrelevant, especially in the context of talking about MSM which in no way shape or form is at one end of a political spectrum.

The MSM shouldn't be, no. Unfortunately, newspapers practice political endorsements. All but 6 drifted to one party in the US.

[Edge-]

The MSM shouldn't be, no. Unfortunately, newspapers practice political endorsements. All but 6 drifted to one party in the US.

In this election, yes. Newspapers endorsing candidates is a longstanding tradition and is a part of their editorial rather than news responsibilities.

The fact that they all backed Clinton over Trump says nothing beyond the fact that the opinion of relatively informed members of the "media elite", as they're so often referred to by conservatives and many of which regularly endorse Republicans or have not failed to endorse a Republican for decades, was that Trump was woefully unqualified to be president.

And based on the events of the past 4 months, it seems like they were pretty spot on.

[Deleted]

I'm still waiting for evidence.

[Allybeboba]

In this election, yes. Newspapers endorsing candidates is a longstanding tradition and is a part of their editorial rather than news responsibilities.

The fact that they all backed Clinton over Trump says nothing beyond the fact that the opinion of relatively informed members of the "media elite", as they're so often referred to by conservatives and many of which regularly endorse Republicans or have not failed to endorse a Republican for decades, was that Trump was woefully unqualified to be president.

And based on the events of the past 4 months, it seems like they were pretty spot on.

Many have endorsed one particular party or another for decades no matter who the candidate was. It is just a matter of where the money was coming from.

[Edge-]

Many have endorsed one particular party or another for decades no matter who the candidate was. It is just a matter of where the money was coming from.

Yeah, not even going to bother with this bullshit if you're going to try to drive yet another discussion off topic.

You're slipping man, your're getting pretty transparent.

[Allybeboba]

Yeah, not even going to bother with this bullshit if you're going to try to drive yet another discussion off topic.

You're slipping man, your're getting pretty transparent.

If you don't think the RNC and DNC purchase ads in newspapers that's fine with me.

[Edge-]

If you don't think the RNC and DNC purchase ads in newspapers that's fine with me.

They do, but advertising and editorial are two different departments and most proper newspapers have a strict separation between ad and editorial teams. It's commonly referred to as "separation of church and state", and it's there specifically to prevent any possible influence on their editorial team by their advertisers.

So unless you can point out to some instances where this was an issue for any notable/regional newspapers, your'e tilting at windmills, dude.