Trump acts like a child while everyone else stands for the anthem

[AzogtheDefiler]

He made a mistake. Shit happens. Why do you harp on things like an old lady?

Did you have that same attitude when Obama left out the "and territories" when he said 57 states?

Find one post where I mocked him for it. I'll patiently wait. Making fun of faux pas is idiotic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

No president in my lifetime has told more lies. No politician. And not even the nuanced lies I'm talking about, which is the stock and trade of all politicians - like Warren - where they'll screw facts to suit their agenda.

These are out and out, easily provable lies. For example, the numbers at his inauguration. He is so ensconced in his little bubble he thinks people will believe him. Why? Because he has been surrounded by 'yes' people his whole adult life. He thinks that because his people brown nose him 24/7 that us normal people think like them. We don't. So when he says something like the above about his crowd, he knows it isn't true and is incensed when called out because he has an expectation that we are all either dumb or arse lickers. We're not.

To me hyperbole is not lying. And he had negative press coverage from day 1.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Does Warren lie 99% of the time like Tramp?????

So now it is 99%? I think she lies at least 50% of the time. Is her coverage 50% negative?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

Yyyyeaahh ummmm.... read your own user name.

My user name is a fictional character from a Tolkien book. What is so offensive about it?

 

[conserveguy877]

What's wrong with orchestrating our national anthem?

 

[edthecynic]

Nearly all those links are extreme Right-wing sources with no credibility.
But assuming it was true, when Tramp lies should the news report that as a positive?????

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

He is a TRAMP, who brags about all the stars he cheated on his wives with and grabbed by their pussies!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Except not even the Right believe the 80%, hence their exaggerating it to 93%. If they truly believed the 80% was real they would have stuck with that number!
And if you are so STUPID that you think the FOX Gossip Channel is 52% negative towards Tramp, then you are too STUPID for words! That alone completely discredits the FAKE study!

What they didn’t tell you is that they only analyzed one hour of TV per day.

It is still a statistically significant sample. Using the naked eye test it is tough to disagree with the study.

How did you determine its statistically significant?

By using statistical math? 1 hour per day on all those channels will be representative of a strong sample size. If I watch Fox or CNN for an hour I can pretty much gauge how they lean.

Did you actually do the "statistical math"?

It's hard to claim it's a strong sample size when it's the same show every single day for 100 days. That certainly smacks of selection bias to me.

This still dodges the issue about what exactly it "should" be. There is no statistical way to determine that. It's solely opinion.

One hour = a lot of programming. It should be whatever garners you ratings these days. Fox has crazy ratings. So why would they change?

 

[conserveguy877]

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

He is a TRAMP, who brags about all the stars he cheated on his wives with and grabbed by their pussies!

Too obsessed with Celebrity Trump gossip.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

I find Azog apolitical....

I find that Azog has a very strong bias against the Democratic party.

The Left side of it. I also attack the Alt Right. If you think I am mean to you, ask Tijn and LaDairis how I treat them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

No president in my lifetime has told more lies. No politician. And not even the nuanced lies I'm talking about, which is the stock and trade of all politicians - like Warren - where they'll screw facts to suit their agenda.

These are out and out, easily provable lies. For example, the numbers at his inauguration. He is so ensconced in his little bubble he thinks people will believe him. Why? Because he has been surrounded by 'yes' people his whole adult life. He thinks that because his people brown nose him 24/7 that us normal people think like them. We don't. So when he says something like the above about his crowd, he knows it isn't true and is incensed when called out because he has an expectation that we are all either dumb or arse lickers. We're not.

To me hyperbole is not lying. And he had negative press coverage from day 1.

Huh? That doesn't even make the giggle test. Saying you've had the biggest inaugural crowd ever is not hyberbole. He believed it. To be hyperbole he meant for it not to be taken literally. He did mean it. 100 per cent. If you want to use that as a gauge, then we could do the same with half of Warren's lies.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

 

[colfax_m]

like Tramp only says something negative only 60% of the time! Why should the media report Tramp's negatives as positive?????

The media should report facts and let the reader form their own opinion. Editorials are fine if they are defined as such. I think Fox and CNN should present both sides at all times and not be so partisan.

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is absolutely not true. Washington Post is one of them. Pretty sure it’s not a right leaning source.

No, the Post was citing the BULLSHIT from MRC a extremist Right-wing lie factory, headed by pathological liar Brent Bozo, that constantly whines about how unfairly the media treats CON$ervoNazis by reporting exactly what they say!

Your rhetoric is not only divisive it is incoherent. When you grow up, feel free to ping me.

When you can't argue the facts, insult the person with the facts, just like Tramp, your Party leader!

When you start calling people "Tramp" you act like a child. Facts do not matter to you.

He is a TRAMP, who brags about all the stars he cheated on his wives with and grabbed by their pussies!

Whatever helps you sleep at night. My 12 year old has better debating skills than you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

No president in my lifetime has told more lies. No politician. And not even the nuanced lies I'm talking about, which is the stock and trade of all politicians - like Warren - where they'll screw facts to suit their agenda.

These are out and out, easily provable lies. For example, the numbers at his inauguration. He is so ensconced in his little bubble he thinks people will believe him. Why? Because he has been surrounded by 'yes' people his whole adult life. He thinks that because his people brown nose him 24/7 that us normal people think like them. We don't. So when he says something like the above about his crowd, he knows it isn't true and is incensed when called out because he has an expectation that we are all either dumb or arse lickers. We're not.

To me hyperbole is not lying. And he had negative press coverage from day 1.

Huh? That doesn't even make the giggle test. Saying you've had the biggest inaugural crowd ever is not hyberbole. He believed it. To be hyperbole he meant for it not to be taken literally. He did mean it. 100 per cent. If you want to use that as a gauge, then we could do the same with half of Warren's lies.

To me when he says I know more than anyone about Global Trade, its him being hyperbolic. I doubt he really believes that. Maybe he does. His rhetoric is not great but he has passed great laws for my occupation and has made it better for me and my family. I wish he would fix the healthcare issue but he has been a good President IMO for the economy and the military thus far. Plus I am a Jew and he has been overly friendly with Israel.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It was a party. Nobody stands for the Anthem in their own home when it's played on T.V. Maybe he wasn't aware that it was on.

These libtard morons must have gotten out of their seats and stood next to the TV when they were children and the signal was lost and it said, "Please Stand By!"

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The media should report facts and let the reader form their own opinion. Editorials are fine if they are defined as such. I think Fox and CNN should present both sides at all times and not be so partisan.

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

 

[colfax_m]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When the press is 93% negative against you.

I wonder what that percentage would be if he stopped lying. Most of the time...

Hyperbolic is who he is. People on the Left lie. Does Liz Warren get 93% negative coverage?

Liz Warren hardly gets any coverage. Hyperbolic is a fun euphamism for lying. So if the media (god forbid) publishes a story about Trump lying, that's counted as negative coverage. If he stopped lying, his coverage would improve substantially.

No. If someone asks me how tall I am and I say 6'10 when I am 6'3, I am lying. If I say I am 6'4, its hyperbole as I am 6'3 in shoes.

And obviously you know that Trump tells a lot of the 6'10" style of lies, right?

He is super bombastic. I honestly don't even listen to 90% of it. To me actions speak louder than words and his actions have helped me financially and that is critical when raising two kids on one income as my wife stays home.

 

[dblack]

What the **** is wrong with him?

More importantly, what the **** is wrong with all the idiots who keep making excuses for his antics?

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah man, I wish it were that easy. You see, just reporting the facts sounds like a convenient little slogan but scratch the surface it gets a lot more complicated. If a person only reports some cherry picked facts, they can paint a very different picture than if someone reports all relevant facts. It can be very purposefully misleading, but still factual. However, no one could possibly report every fact there is, so no matter what you do, a reporter is going to have to chose some facts to leave out. It is a subjective call to determine what's important and what isn't, so no matter what you do, there's going to wind up being some people who determine your reporting is biased because you reported some fact they didn't like or left out some fact they found to be more relevant than you. That doesn't even get into determining what is and isn't a fact, which these days it seems like no one can decide on.

Then report both sides. Have one make an argument for the Left and another for the Right. It should not be overly difficult.

It's endlessly difficult. If all you're doing is letting people make two different arguments, then you're no longer reporting facts but propagating political positions. I'm not saying that's not useful in itself, but it's also not exactly the same thing as journalism. Hearing a skewed argument from the left and a skewed argument from the right doesn't actually do much in my opinion. You don't magically land in an unbiased position after that. What that really does it just facilitate the identity politics. People will pick the person that they identify with (i.e. someone on the left) and ignore what the other person has to say. It facilitates individual bias more than anything. I mean, think about the current economy. The right will tell you it's booming. The left will tell you it's a disaster. The answer is in the middle, somethings are doing great, some aren't, but you don't come to that conclusion by listening to these two opposites describe the same thing.

Journalism is about figuring out what is true, reporting what happened, understanding the world. You don't get that by listening to two opposite but skewed viewpoints.

Take politics out and discuss sports. Should NE bring back Tom Brady. One side argues "yes" and another argues "no". The right answer is somewhere there and we will really know after he ends his career. But if one news source just bashes him and only shows his bad games and stats of QBs in their mid 40s and the other only shows his great plays, you don't get the full picture but together you form a better one than if you only see one side. When I watch Celtics games, I try to watch the National announcers if I can as they provide a more even keel broadcast. That is how political news should be too. IMO.

The analogy is a bit problematic. You're asking an opinion about a decision to be made in the future. One side vs the other side is fine, because there isn't really an answer as it's unknowable. It hasn't happened yet. It's speculation.

Things are a lot more murky in politics. Sports is about events that happened in front of everyone. It's recorded on video. Statistics are taken. At the end of the Celtics game, it doesn't matter what announcer you listened to, you know who won. Politics isn't that way. People hide things. And people take sides. Tribalism is infected our politics to such a degree it's difficult to ignore. If you take a person on the right and a person on the left, chances are the viewer is just going to ignore the side they don't identify with.

Not quite. If the Celtics won, was it because Brad Stevens made the right coaching moves or because the other coach screwed up or a myriad of other reasons. If the Patriots don't sign Brady, they have a ton of cap space for something else. Debates can happen. Same in politics. Why not discuss if the USMCA is good or bad vs. not talking about it at all and instead discussing why Trump hates Islam. Its useless rhetoric.

Sure, and there are plenty of available times to debate these issues. But that's not really journalism.

What I get annoyed at is debating whether facts are true or not.