Wow, people are still trying to play the “When Trump says X he really means Y.” card? Despite zero evidence of him ever meaning anything but X, X, and more X?
No, it was my bad, not the pills.
I don’t really disagree, and if he were just some private citizen, I’d just roll my eyes at him. But he’s not. He’s the damn president and that makes it completely indefensible in my opinion. The fact remains that there are massive appearances (and I stress that it is just appearances at this point) of conflicts of interest and other improprieties. And when the people trying to shine a light on these things are undermined by the government (and again, he is that, not some private citizen anymore) it’s a problem. maybe it doesn’t really mean anything. Maybe all those appearances are just appearances, but his continuing to act like none of it matters, or for us to excuse it as “trump being trump” as a big damned problem because he’s the president, therefore it DOES matter.
No, what you’re trying to “stress” is that there is not yet evidence of him breaking a law on the books.
There is ABSOLUTELY a shitload of conflict on interest on his part. He himself and all of his direct family (which are doubling as unelected government representatives whenever they feel like it) ABSOLUTELY have hundreds of millions of dollars of properties and deals at stake overseas, often in the very countries that they (Trump and his spawn) are negotiating deals with.
The fact that this is not outright illegal is more due to fact that the scrupulously honest people that we’ve elected POTUS before 2016 never put the country in a position that we had to worry about it enough to actually pass a law, not because Trump is carefully toeing a delicate legal line.
I think we need more RoyalWe on pain pills. The discourse has been downright civilized (from his end, anyway).
I agree, but was trying to be careful not to overstate the case. But the important point, IMO, is that having the president undermining the media, intelligence agencies, etc. is a problem.
He is always civilized.
What is different is the degree to which I agreed with his last statement. Were it not for the fact I’ve been away all day, and quoting sections on a phone is a pain in the ass, I’d write a substantive reply.
As is I fully agree with you @RoyalWe that Snowden is a damned hero, Assange is a snake, and there is a substantive difference is a person leaking with intent like Snowden, and Manning whose was more scattershot and any good was incidental.
That said I do not feel there is, or should be, a legal obligation for a newspaper to publish/ not publish classified Intel that falls into their hands. There is, however, an ethical one in how they choose to cover it. I.e. When dealing with such info taking care to publish info in the public interest while making informed decisions to publish in a manner that does not irresponsibly place persons in danger. If you can report some info without identifying an undercover agent, for example, without compromising the public interest of disclosure? You should strive to do so. Publishing blanket information, like Wikileaks’s, without some minimum diligence is, at best, ethically compromised, at worst criminally negligent.
I don’t believe that’s what he means nor do I believe that’s what his supporters think that’s what it means either. Evidence says they believe the largest media groups in the country just make shit up despite constant proof that says otherwise. Do you want me to show you the inauguration photo’s again? There is nothing irresponsible or extremely biased about showing those shots, and anyone who believes Trump over actual photos of those events believes literal Fake News is happening just to make him look bad.
Which is why you threaten to insult him?
No he just walks away when anyone presses him for any sort of proof to back-up his claims, like site sources or you know, read them. It’s easy to be fly-by civilized if you can get everyone to just take you at your word and then exit under false civility if anyone presses you to actually back the position.
The techincal term is “flat affect”.
LOL. If you are a medical doctor or licensed psychologist, then I question your method of patient assessment. I like to think I’m always civilized even though I know many people are suspicious of me and/or vehemently disagree with my opinions. Since I’m in the minority, I obviously have more opportunity to let dubious medical diagnoses roll off of my back. At the moment, however, if you have any suggestions for back pain I’m all ears.
There have been several ad hominem attacks toward me during my short time here. Maybe I am providing a public service so those dealing with our political landscape can vent. Otherwise, I try not to take anonymous internet discussion personally.
I’m sorry you dislike me so much, @Nesrie. [quote=“Nesrie, post:309, topic:128165”]
Evidence says they believe the largest media groups in the country just make shit up despite constant proof that says otherwise. Do you want me to show you the inauguration photo’s again?
[/quote]
I don’t recall taking a position on this. Without searching, my general recollection is that I think it was stupid for anyone to comment on this. I question the motives of the media (a blatant attempt to belittle Trump) and the predictable response on his side of arguing about it. Pretty sure we all lose with that exchange. But I think somehow you are trying to put me in that bucket?
I will treat you as an individual, @Nesrie, if you will give me the same courtesy and stop trying to stereotype me.
But seriously, why do you claim to know what Trump means when all evidence shows that he always means exactly and literally what he says?
Because your face is dumb
When someone asks you for a source, don’t tell them to Google it. If you make a claim, back it up. It has nothing to do with stereotypes. .
And don’t tell me Trump supporters, or Trump himself, don’t believe fake really means fake unless you have something to back it up. Do you?
This isn’t a scientific conference. If someone makes a comment without a citation, the civilized response is to take it with a grain of salt and move on. It’s not exactly unusual in normal conversation.
No, it’s not easy to be civilized. Being civilized means that you let people walk away after you think you’ve made your best possible case, as opposed to hounding them for a reply. How hard is that?
The criticism of not being able to defend ones claims is legitimate. If someone can’t do that, then the correct thing would be to accept that they were making an error.
Honestly, even from the perspective of one’s own mind, if we can’t defend our own positions, that is an indication of a problem.
Royal makes statements like this:
And when someone asks them to actually site the source for this claim,he tells them to go use Google. You and he want to claim that exiting an argument suddenly once someone asks him to back up an extreme claim like that is somehow a gentlemanly thing to do.
The problem is, I don’t see evidence of Royal providing or even reading sources provided in any argument. That’s not a personal thing, or a stereotype, but if you want to prove me wrong, go ahead.
I don’t think it’s a civilized thing to jump into arguments, provide opinions like they were facts backed up by something higher than yourself and then leave when called out on it. And let’s get something straight here, he didn’t say I don’t believe the vetting is sufficient or even imply it was an opinion held by a portion of the public or anything like that, he actually claimed our intelligence community universally has this opinion and then refused to back that statement by telling everyone to do the research for him.
But hey i guess he left the argument right when he wanted to so he can claim how civilized he is.
And now we’re back to how not literal Trump is… so not literal he’s talking to contractors to build an actual, physical, real life wall on our southern border. Someone who signed an executive order in attempt to actually implement the Muslim ban he talked about.
So when Trump and his supporters say fake news, and someone claims, yet again, they don’t really mean it, it’s not literal… where is that coming from, based on what? These other claims and wants… they’ve been literal.
It’s my opinion. When I say “I think”, it’s because it’s what I think.
Instead of people acknowledging that Trump most likely understands that leaks (illegal or not) from reliable sources are probably true, they would rather say “he’s unhinged” or “a complete moron” because he says the information from the news source is “fake”. I don’t think Trump is that stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing and what he is saying. Unfortunately for him, these kinds of statements only play for his base – he’s just pissing everyone else off.
Technically, I provided a link in Google where the top few sources backed up exactly what I said and I suggested they they pick whichever ones they wanted. So, what’s your beef again?[quote=“Nesrie, post:314, topic:128165”]
And don’t tell me Trump supporters, or Trump himself, don’t believe fake really means fake unless you have something to back it up. Do you?
[/quote]
Please give me your source which proves that every word out of Trump’s mouth is exactly and literally what he means. I’ll even accept a Google link pointing to the articles because I don’t care about minutiae.
Thank you. Damn.