Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[rda]

Bullshit.

It got Trump elected. It cannot be MORE influential than that.

No, it did not get Trump elected. The notion that Trump was elected due to Russian interference is absurd.

[Paranoid Android]

Oh absolutely correct. Hopefully though he's so tuckered out from his 2 hour work day he sleeps the whole trip home.

One word: Adderall.

[Bodakane]

No, it did not get Trump elected. The notion that Trump was elected due to Russian interference is absurd.

It fucking happened. It has been proven. Every single US intelligence agency agrees.

The only thing that is absurd is you and people like you lying about it.

[Daelak]

I missed part of this. Officials claimed he was having bilateral meetings with Germany and India, but Merkel and Modi were at the climate talks.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not about stopping climate change. It's about mitigating our impact on it while also preparing for the increased effects as glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt more quickly.

The media need to go ahead and tell us the truth, both Trump and his aides lie at all times to cover his laziness. This was more of his executive time while overseas.

[Breccia]

So while lying Russian trolls continue to insist lying Russian trolls weren't lying, here's something that actually happened: SHS is apparently exploring the option to run for governor of Arkansas.

"Wait, I thought she just took a FOX News job. Can she do both?"

Probably, yes.

Sanders probably chose Arkansas because
1) her daddy was governor there, and
2) only in Arkansas would SHS be considered attractive enough to run.

"DUDE!"

Hey, she chose to work for Trump who made those kinds of comments. Throwing them back at her is 100% fair game.

[Paranoid Android]

French President Emmanuel Macron says he’s trying to arrange a meeting between President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani https://t.co/4nrbYkKeQg

I don't know if Macron ambushed Trump here but I watched Trump's response. Surprise! He rambled about stuff that had nothing to do with the Iran Nuclear deal. He is over his head.

This is the worst when Trump is one on one with a leader. He actually has to think on his own.

[Endus]

No, what I am describing as propaganda is reporting that distorts what was said or what happened in a direction the reporter is interested in. The bias is on the distorter, not on listeners.

And if you're claiming that most news coming from traditional media is distorted in this way, you're lying.

Google, Facebook and Youtube are misusing their positions of de-facto monopolies to influence the political arena, that's why I want limits to be put onto them.

Yes, people you disagree with have political influence, and thus you want to attack their freedom of speech.

You're paraphrasing what I said. That doesn't make it reasonable. It isn't. It's a naked attack on basic human rights and freedoms.

Opinions and analysis were generally confined to editorials and analytical articles, respectively.

I've checked a few variations of journalist codes, and you seem to be wrong.

Editorializing reporting on news is more of a new thing.

Neither of those support the argument being made, here. They call for a focus on truth and accuracy, but there's no indication that these media sources have any particular issue in that respect; the complaint is that they have opinion pieces that some don't agree with.

[rda]

It fucking happened. It has been proven. Every single US intelligence agency agrees.

The only thing that is absurd is you and people like you lying about it.

??? It has been proven that Russian interference got Trump elected?

Could you point me to a paper or something that explains how this has been proven? If you mean the Mueller report, point to a specific section.

What you are saying is just not true.

[Bodakane]

??? It has been proven that Russian interference got Trump elected?

Could you point me to a paper or something that explains how this has been proven? If you mean the Mueller report, point to a specific section.

What you are saying is just not true.

The Mueller Report, for one.

[Endus]

Sanders probably chose Arkansas because
...
2) only in Arkansas would SHS be considered attractive enough to run.

"DUDE!"

Hey, she chose to work for Trump who made those kinds of comments. Throwing them back at her is 100% fair game.

Even to "throw it back", you're basically agreeing that those kinds of attacks have merit. So let's not do that, 'kay?

It doesn't matter that she's unattractive. Nobody talks about whether Mitch McConnell cuts a nice figure in his suit. Let's stop perpetrating this bullshit.

[rda]

The Mueller Report, for one.

I specifically said - if you mean the Mueller report, point to a specific section. It's right in the text you quoted. Because I half expected this reply. What wording in the report says that Trump has been elected due to Russian interference? Be specific.

[Breccia]

I don't know if Macron ambushed Trump here but I watched Trump's response. Surprise! He rambled about stuff that had nothing to do with the Iran Nuclear deal.

We've seen, in Toledo for example, that Trump can barely function with a working telepromptor with large font. There was no chance he was going to be able to speak on a topic reasonably and accurately without prep time or cheating.

[rda]

Yes, people you disagree with have political influence, and thus you want to attack their freedom of speech.

You're paraphrasing what I said. That doesn't make it reasonable. It isn't. It's a naked attack on basic human rights and freedoms.

No, I am not paraphrasing what you said, it's not about people I disagree with, it's about people I disagree with who distort what happened in their reporting.

What you are calling an attack on freedoms is attack onto the filtering of de-facto monopolies that distorts the events and adds a spin to what actually happened. Small agents can do that, big agents cannot, they are too influential to be allowed to do that.

[Endus]

The Mueller Report, for one.

He's playing a game where because nobody can specifically tell exactly how many votes were either "flipped" from Democrat to Republican, or how many Democrats stayed home, or Republicans came out, who otherwise wouldn't have, due entirely and solely to the Russian propaganda efforts to interfere in the 2016 American election cycle, that you can't say it's proven that Russia got Trump elected.

That they helped is a fact.
That they were trying to help Trump, specifically, is a fact.
That members of Trump's campaign were complicit, is a fact.
That these efforts were the single and only factor that made the difference? That's just not possible to actually quantify. But given the narrowness of the victory in key States, it wouldn't have taken much of a nudge for Russian interference to have done so.

In short, he's playing games with the word "proven", because "extremely likely based on the preponderance of the evidence" isn't a slam-dunk and he wants to bait you into an angry retort.

[Breccia]

Even to "throw it back", you're basically agreeing that those kinds of attacks have merit.

I was actually trying to put Trump's actions -- calling a female running for office too unattractive to vote for -- right back where it belongs, in Team Trump's lap. For the record, I don't think they have merit. But I do feel that people who follow certain rules, have to continue to follow those rules, even when they're being used in a way they don't approve of. If someone calls SHS too ugly to vote for, too bad, she has to accept that.

However, because you asked nicely, I'll lay off Sanders herself. I will continue to call Trump a fat orange obese flabsack of Cheeto dust and Burger King grease until he apologizes or dies. I respect you, but that message is more important.

[Bodakane]

I specifically said - if you mean the Mueller report, point to a specific section. It's right in the text you quoted. Because I half expected this reply. What wording in the report says that Trump has been elected due to Russian interference? Be specific.

You didn't read it.

[Endus]

No, I am not paraphrasing what you said, it's not about people I disagree with, it's about people I disagree with who distort what happened in their reporting.

Still waiting for any evidence of any such "distortion".

For someone who's asking for evidence of the Russian interference, you're not playing by your own rules.

What you are calling an attack on freedoms is attack onto the filtering of de-facto monopolies that distorts the events and adds a spin to what actually happened. Small agents can do that, big agents cannot, they are too influential to be allowed to do that.

There is no such "distortion". You're making up a conspiracy theory to justify your attempt to silence political voices you don't support. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

[Paranoid Android]

On the question of inviting Putin back to G7.

Trump right now is attacking Obama and defending Putin. Again saying he outsmarted Obama.

He is rambling about a pipeline being built close to Germany as economic reason.

Haha! He just said if Crimea happened under his watch he would take responsibility.

Oh he said Obama personally kicked out Putin. No other country had a say in G7/8.

[rda]

That they helped is a fact.
That they were trying to help Trump, specifically, is a fact.
That members of Trump's campaign were complicit, is a fact.
That these efforts were the single and only factor that made the difference? That's just not possible to actually quantify. But given the narrowness of the victory in key States, it wouldn't have taken much of a nudge for Russian interference to have done so.

That they helped is not actually a fact, they perhaps helped but the amounts are so tiny, they disappear in the noise of measurement error.

That they were trying to help Trump and not Hillary is a fact for those incidents observed in the report, yes. There were other incidents from other foreign agents, not in the report, who were trying to help Hillary.

That members of Trump's campaign were complicit is not a fact at all, this has specifically not been proven and this is why nobody was indicted on conspiracy charges regarding the elections.

That these efforts were the single and only factor that made the difference -- is absolutely possible to quantify and say that they were NOT a factor worth of consideration at all. See the number of posts / tweets and observe that the amount is on the level of a single mid-level media outlet. This is like saying that Chicago Tribune could have been responsible for the result of the elections. No, that the results were close does not mean that they could have been responsible, nobody knew where exactly the tipping points would be and nobody orchestrated pressing on the actual final tipping points.

[Bodakane]

That they helped is not actually a fact, they perhaps helped but the amounts are so tiny, they disappear in the noise of measurement error.

That they were trying to help Trump and not Hillary is a fact for those incidents observed in the report, yes. There were other incidents from other foreign agents, not in the report, who were trying to help Hillary.

That members of Trump's campaign were complicit is not a fact at all, this has specifically not been proven and this is why nobody was indicted on conspiracy charges regarding the elections.

That these efforts were the single and only factor that made the difference -- is absolutely possible to quantify and say that they were NOT a factor worth of consideration at all. See the number of posts / tweets and observe that the amount is on the level of a single mid-level media outlet. This is like saying that Chicago Tribune could have been responsible for the result of the elections. No, that the results were close does not mean that they could have been responsible, nobody knew where exactly the tipping points would be and nobody orchestrated pressing on the actual final tipping points.

Stop with all this nonsense, you didn' read the report.