Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Felya]

They issued a correction because not issuing it would have made them look even worse than they look with it.

That’s bias... if they didn’t issue the correction, you’d have nothing to show. They issued the correction, because they wanted to stick to the truth. Every other assertion about it, is straight up bias. If issuing a correction is to make them look better, why doesn’t Trump ever issue a correction, for statements you claim are taken out of context? Does correcting them selfs only help media?

[Ghostpanther]

Seriously just put rda on ignore as they don't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation and consistently misrepresent facts which derails the thread for 2-3 pages at a time.

Anyways Mattis just published a piece in the WSJ basically saying he stayed as long as he could and that Trump doesn't trust his subordinates and that his "America goes it alone" strategy is doomed to failure.

https://www.axios.com/james-mattis-w...90fe9cb19.html

This is nothing new when it comes to conflicts of officials with a sitting President. Gen. MacArthur, disagreed with President Truman's war strategy in Korea to the point he expressed it publicly, which led to his resignation.

Same thing happened during Obama's presidency with a commander in Afghanistan.

[rda]

That’s bias... if they didn’t issue the correction, you’d have nothing to show. They issued the correction, because they wanted to stick to the truth. Every other assertion about it, is straight up bias. If issuing a correction is to make them look better, why doesn’t Trump ever issue a correction, for statements you claim are taken out of context? Does correcting them selfs only help media?

If they didn't issue the correction, I'd point to a story that was absolutely false yet not retracted.

[Felya]

If they didn't issue the correction, I'd point to a story that was absolutely false yet not retracted.

Do it... go ahead... Point to a false story that isn’t redacted...

[rda]

Do it... go ahead... Point to a false story that isn’t redacted...

I guess you didn't understand. You said that if CNN didn't issue the correction, I'd have nothing to show. I say that if they didn't issue the correction, I'd have pointed to the same story which would be absolutely false yet not retracted.

[Felya]

Point to a misrepresentation.

Otherwise it is you misrepresenting facts. Ironically enough.

You are arguing that correcting your self, is a sign of misinformation. Not the ability to admit you were wrong and post the truth, instead of doubling down on incorrect information. In fact, the fact that admitting one was wrong is being argued as a weakness by you, kind of makes every single one of your posts irrelevant. After all, you will never admit to being wrong...

[rda]

You are arguing that correcting your self, is a sign of misinformation. Not the ability to admit you were wrong and post the truth, instead of doubling down on incorrect information. In fact, the fact that admitting one was wrong is being argued as a weakness by you, kind of makes every single one of your posts irrelevant. After all, you will never admit to being wrong...

No, I am not arguing that. Where's the correction? kaelleria didn't point to anything specific.

[Felya]

I guess you didn't understand. You said that if CNN didn't issue the correction, I'd have nothing to show. I say that if they didn't issue the correction, I'd have pointed to the same story which would be absolutely false yet not retracted.

Go ahead and show us a single story that isn’t true, that hasn’t been redacted. You wouldn’t even be able to find it, because you can’t search for ‘redacted’ or ‘correction’.

[Breccia]

I feel compelled to quote this WaPo article, one of many on the subject:

‘A lot of people are saying . . . ’: How Trump spreads conspiracies and innuendoes

Following the country’s most deadly mass shooting, Donald Trump was asked to explain what he meant when he said President Obama either does not understand radicalized Muslim terrorists or “he gets it better than anybody understands.”

“Well,” Trump said on the “Today Show” Monday morning, “there are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it. A lot of people think maybe he doesn’t want to know about it. I happen to think that he just doesn’t know what he’s doing, but there are many people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it. He doesn’t want to see what’s really happening. And that could be.”

In other words, Trump was not directly saying that he believes the president sympathizes with the terrorist who killed at least 49 people in an Orlando nightclub. He was implying that a lot of people are saying that.

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

This is particularly true when it comes to Trump’s comments on Islam. For months, the candidate has portrayed Muslims as the leading threat working against the United States and has routinely suggested in a wink-wink fashion that the president might secretly be a follower.

At a rally in New Hampshire in September, a man in the audience loudly declared President Obama a Muslim and “not even an American,” then asked Trump to get rid of Muslim “training camps.”

“You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there,” Trump responded. “We’re going to look at that and plenty of other things.”

Later that month, Trump announced that as president he would kick all Syrian refugees out of the country and not allow any others to enter because they could be a secret terrorist army.

“This could be the ultimate — probably not, but it could be — the ultimate Trojan horse,” Trump said on Fox News in early November, floating the idea without embracing it.

(On Fox News Monday, Trump said that he used to make this suggestion “with a smile” but he is now “starting to think that it can happen because our politicians are so inept and so incapable.”)

When it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has floated a variety of theories as to why the United States got what he views as such a raw deal. During a campaign rally in South Carolina in December, Trump seemed to accuse the U.S. negotiators of not having the country’s best interests in mind.

“Some people say it’s worse than stupidity. There’s something going on that we don’t know about,” Trump said in Hilton Head. “And you almost think — I’m not saying that, and I’m not a conspiracy person. . . . Half the people in this room are saying it. I’m trying to be — you know, I’m just hoping they’re just stupid people, okay?”

Trump’s they-said-it-not-me tactic is also often used when he’s attacking his rivals or their relatives.

In early January, Trump said that he was not concerned that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) was born in Canada — but that he had heard from many Republicans who were.

“I’d hate to see something like that get in his way, but a lot of people are talking about it, and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post at the time.

As this attack on Cruz stuck — and was echoed by other Republicans — Trump stopped pinning the concern on others and embraced it as his own, even threatening to sue Cruz over his eligibility in mid-February.

In attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton, Trump indirectly raised questions about one of their close friends, Vince Foster, whose suicide in 1993 has long been a focus of far-right conspiracy theorists who allege Clinton involvement.

“I don’t bring [Foster’s death] up because I don’t know enough to really discuss it,” Trump said in an interview with The Post in May. “I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.”

Still, the fact that Trump even chose to comment on the topic outraged many — including Foster’s sister, who accused Trump of “cynically, crassly and recklessly” insinuating that her brother had been murdered to further his own candidacy.

When asked about Foster during a news conference in North Dakota soon after, Trump continued to distance himself by attributing the concern to “a lot of people.”

“Somebody asked me the question the other day, and I said that a lot of people are very skeptical as to what happened and how he died,” Trump said. “I know nothing about it. I don’t think it’s something that, frankly, really, unless some evidence to the contrary of what I have seen comes up, I don’t think that it’s something that should be part of the campaign.”

Oh, and it hasn't stopped in 2016 of course. Here's an example from literally this week.

And of course, there's the recent posts I made showing Trump, in public, claiming foreign leaders called him in private, which those leaders refuted. Again, China did that literally this week.

So, if you're one of those people who says "anyone who cites multiple unnamed sources is lying", I guess you'd have to immediately respond by saying "Yes, Trump lies all the time", wouldn't you? I mean, otherwise, you'd be a massive hypocrite, wouldn't you?

In other news: the CDC in public went to an interview and said the US was in danger of losing "measles eliminated" status.

It certainly is incredibly frustrating and upsetting to the public health community that we may lose measles elimination status, because we do have a safe and effective vaccine

Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

How bad could it be, though? Let's review, starting with this post from April.

A far more realistic prediction would be 800-900.

Jesus, it's twelve hundred and counting. Holy shit, I'm a dumbass.

Measles cases haven't been this high since 1992 or so. The CDC recommended a second MMR shot about 1990, dropping cases per year from 10,000+ to under 1,000 in a couple years. And we're back.

And why, might you ask, am I tying these two topics together?

Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!

OH LOOK. There's Trump in 2014, citing multiple unnamed sources.

What science has changed, between then and when Trump changed his tune? None. The study was in 1997, it was recanted by the publisher in 2004, Andrew Wakefield lost his license in 2010 and that's the end of that discussion. What did change, was Trump found himself in charge of the United States that saw a massive upswing of a curable disease, because of his words and actions. The only other option is that Trump waited until he was hosting an epidemic, like a shithole country, before he read up on the subject, which is arguably worse.

Are we sick and tired of winning yet?

[Felya]

If they didn't issue the correction, I'd point to a story that was absolutely false yet not retracted.

No, I am not arguing that. Where's the correction? kaelleria didn't point to anything specific.

You are now arguing both, that they did issue the correction and that you can’t find your very post with the correction? Oh, that’s right... you can’t admit being wrong...

[rda]

Go ahead and show us a single story that isn’t true, that hasn’t been redacted. You wouldn’t even be able to find it, because you can’t search for ‘redacted’ or ‘correction’.

I don't understand what I should do that for.

- - - Updated - - -

You are now arguing both, that they did issue the correction and that you can’t find your very post with the correction? Oh, that’s right... you can’t admit being wrong...

You are mixing up two different things - CNN false story and kaelleria accusing me of misrepresenting things without pointing to anything.

[Belize]

I feel compelled to quote this WaPo article, one of many on the subject:



Oh, and it hasn't stopped in 2016 of course. Here's an example from literally this week.

And of course, there's the recent posts I made showing Trump, in public, claiming foreign leaders called him in private, which those leaders refuted. Again, China did that literally this week.

So, if you're one of those people who says "anyone who cites multiple unnamed sources is lying", I guess you'd have to immediately respond by saying "Yes, Trump lies all the time", wouldn't you? I mean, otherwise, you'd be a massive hypocrite, wouldn't you?

In other news: the CDC in public went to an interview and said the US was in danger of losing "measles eliminated" status.


Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases

How bad could it be, though? Let's review, starting with this post from April.



Jesus, it's twelve hundred and counting. Holy shit, I'm a dumbass.

Measles cases haven't been this high since 1992 or so. The CDC recommended a second MMR shot about 1990, dropping cases per year from 10,000+ to under 1,000 in a couple years. And we're back.

And why, might you ask, am I tying these two topics together?

Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!

OH LOOK. There's Trump in 2014, citing multiple unnamed sources.

What science has changed, between then and when Trump changed his tune? None. The study was in 1997, it was recanted by the publisher in 2004, Andrew Wakefield lost his license in 2010 and that's the end of that discussion. What did change, was Trump found himself in charge of the United States that saw a massive upswing of a curable disease, because of his words and actions. The only other option is that Trump waited until he was hosting an epidemic, like a shithole country, before he read up on the subject, which is arguably worse.

Are we sick and tired of winning yet?

So what you're saying is that there's a lot of people saying that Trump fucks horses?

It would certainly be a shame if someone were to go on social media to spread to the world that a lot of people are saying Trump fucks horses.

[Dontrike]

I don't reply to every post because I am not on the forum that often, but when I am on the forum, the current last post from Breccia invariably contains a distortion or a couple of distortions.

No no, you said almost every one of Breccia's posts, if you don't want to play this game of proving you wrong then perhaps use different words. Until then though I'll be waiting for you to prove yourself right by doing what I said.

[rda]

I feel compelled to quote this WaPo article, one of many on the subject:

[...]

So, if you're one of those people who says "anyone who cites multiple unnamed sources is lying", I guess you'd have to immediately respond by saying "Yes, Trump lies all the time", wouldn't you? I mean, otherwise, you'd be a massive hypocrite, wouldn't you?

[...]

Measles [...] twelve hundred and counting [...] And why, might you ask, am I tying these two topics together? [...]

OH LOOK. There's Trump in 2014, citing multiple unnamed sources. [...]

Are we sick and tired of winning yet?

Good, one more post from Breccia. Not the worst one by far, the WaPo piece on Trump's tactic of saying things he supposedly heard to say things without taking responsibility is good.

But even that post from Breccia contains a distortion.

First, who on earth said that Trump referencing multiple unnamed sources is fine, while media referencing multiple unnamed sources means their story is fake? Who said it? It's a bad sign for both sides. When the media descends into "multiple unnamed sources", I conclude that their story is fake. When Trump does that, I conclude the exact same, the story is ignored because it is unsupported.

Now, there is a difference between Trump and the media in that Trump is there to do things and the media is there to report on things. So, yes, if someone wants to post a fake story hiding behind big words like "multiple unnamed sources", better be Trump than the media. It's when Trump is going to DO something based on that fake story that we have a problem. While with the media, their entire function is to report non-fakes.

[Blur4stuff]

On one hand you have reputable news outlets with a track record of accurate reporting and retracting/correcting when they get it wrong.

On the other you have Trump that tells dozens of lies on a daily basis.

So if WaPo/others have an unamed source then you can give them at least some of your trust. If Trump does then you give him none of your trust. This is fairly simple.

[zenkai]

On topic, here's an example of the media misreporting in a big way yet hiding behind saying that they had "multiple sources":

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/...what-happened/

CNN went on the air and announced a major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.

The story turned out to be completely and utterly false, and here's how they tried to defend:



You see? Multiple sources. Unnamed, of course.

This is a common way of trying to save face when you misreport.

The same seems to have happened with Trump's supposedly insistently suggesting to nuke the hurricanes.

Yup, headline on page 1, retraction/correction on page 12

[kaelleria]

Senator Johnny Isakson is resigning his senate seat from Georgia at the end of 2019.... This does not seem to be Trump related as he has Parkinson's disease.

This will mean Georgia will have 2 Senate races next year.

- - - Updated - - -

‘Take the land’: President Trump wants a border wall. He wants it black. And he wants it by Election Day.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent sits near the Calexico Port of Entry, where a section of border fence that is painted black is to the right, on Aug. 22, in Calexico, Calif. The typical color of the border fence is seen to the left. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)
President Trump is so eager to complete hundreds of miles of border fence ahead of the 2020 presidential election that he has directed aides to fast-track billions of dollars’ worth of construction contracts, aggressively seize private land and disregard environmental rules, according to current and former officials involved with the project.

He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...e70_story.html

Trump is now advocating that people break the law so he can keep his horribly racist campaign promise.

[Breccia]

There has been some discussion about whether FOX News is state-run media. It's time to bring this discussion to a close. Trump tweeted, because of course he did, that Fox isn’t working for him anymore.

"Wait, what were his exact words?"

Just watched FoxNews heavily promoting the Democrats through their DNC Communications Director, spewing out whatever she wanted with zero pushback by anchor, SandraSmithFox. Terrible considering that Fox couldn’t even land a debate, the Dems give them NOTHING! CNN and NBC are all in for the Open Border Socialists (or beyond). Fox hires “give Hillary the questions” donnabrazile, Juan Williams and low ratings Shep Smith. HOPELESS & CLUELESS! They should go all the way LEFT and I will still find a way to Win - That’s what I do, Win. Too Bad! I don’t want to Win for myself, I only want to Win for the people. The New FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!

No fucking way am I linking those tweets but I will link someone who did so you know I'm not making shit up.

Incidentally, I had to edit out the @ marks because this site would go nuts with all the mentions.

Leaving out the obvious issues (capital Win?) that sure looks like Trump denying that FOX News works for him or whatever group millions of GREAT people means, and therefore, is not state run media. Of course, it also looks like Resident Trump is intentionally attacking specific private companies and also the free press. Say what you want about FOX News, they deserve most of it, but their polls match up with other credible polls and their opinions are just as valid as, say, Hannity or O'Reilly. I disagree with them often and think they're exploiting the right-wing niche for money. But when the head of the country attacks any press source because they don't say what he wants, it goes beyond my distaste for FOX News and into the Constitution.

But!

This also means, that anyone in the rabid fanbase can't cite FOX News anymore. So, silver linings.

Near as I can tell, FOX News hasn't responded yet. Their "Fake News" (lol) main headline is Mattis swipes at Trump, warns of ‘storm clouds gathering’ amid fractured alliances. Hmm. "Fractured alliances". Whatever could that possibly mean?

Mattis’ comments were included in a lengthy essay adapted from a forthcoming book and published in The Wall Street Journal. They amount to the most extensive remarks from him about his time in the Trump administration since he quietly resigned in January.

In the essay, Mattis suggested he left his post as secretary of defense amid concerns about “keeping faith with our allies,” warning that America “cannot go it alone.”

“Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither. Alone, America cannot protect our people and our economy,” Mattis wrote. “At this time, we can see storm clouds gathering.”

He pointedly added: “A polemicist’s role is not sufficient for a leader. A leader must display strategic acumen that incorporates respect for those nations that have stood with us when trouble loomed.”

Mattis said he “did as well as I could, for as long as I could” as secretary of defense.

Etc etc we've seen that before, I just wanted to point out that FOX News is running that as their main headline. For some reason. Hmm.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, that's four now.

Also, I disagree with his policies from what little I've seen after reading up, but, Parkinsons is no laughing matter. He should be commended for his dedication, if nothing else, to staying as long as he did. That's John McCain level stuff, right there.

- - - Updated - - -

Senator Johnny Isakson is resigning his senate seat from Georgia at the end of 2019

In any given term, there will be some people leaving because of legit issues, such as a medical issue or they got caught stealing. That's normal.

Thing is, he adds to the list of departures that exist for "spend time with my family" rats deserting a sinking ship. It all adds up.

It's like, hmm, it's like spending all your money on a tax cut for the rich, then not being able to stave off a recession because you have no money left. Don't know why that parallel leapt to mind, but, there you go.

[Felya]

I don't understand what I should do that for.

To prove your assertions are genuine and not made up to push an agenda? You are free not to do it, while I am free to point at it as a show of your dishonesty.

You are mixing up two different things - CNN false story and kaelleria accusing me of misrepresenting things without pointing to anything.

No, I am still on the point I’m making... I am not kaelleria and you chose to point at others, instead of simply replying to what I said.

So... in two back to back posts, you refuse to back up the shit you are saying, be it through self confirmed ignorance or whataboutism.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, headline on page 1, retraction/correction on page 12

The correction is at the top of the article he linked...

[Breccia]

NBC News reports that the Trump administration is set to negotiate a deal with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

"That sounds...familiar."

It should. That's the name the Taliban used back when they ran the place, pre-9/11. By naming the country thusly, Trump would be conceding the Taliban are the rightful government.

Allowing the Taliban to refer to themselves as the Islamic Emirate, even in parentheses, allows them to build the narrative that they forced the U.S. to negotiate an exit from Afghanistan just as the mujahideen had forced the Soviets out.

If the administration is eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, it would have done better to announce a no-deal exit than allowing the Taliban such a huge propaganda victory

-- former Pakistan ambassador to the US

For those who don't remember, the Taliban was basically the Afghani government when 9/11 happened. We demanded to go in and get Osama bin Laden. They refused. There is only one response to that.

(reads above post)

Sorry, apparently there's a second: telling them they're in charge, while blaming Democratic lawmakers for handwaving 9/11.