Originally Posted by Guest

What I care about is a man sitting in the Oval Office who would or could possibly make such a tweet, statement.

As always, you excuse the ramblings of an incoherent person.

First: Poster keep speaking for me and I have said many times before on this thread that there are things about Trump that I DO NOT LIKE. Further Trump doesn't need anyone to defend him and excuse he does well for himself.

Secondly and most importantly I am not affected with reductio ad Trumpursum and /or Trump Derangement Syndrome.

My focus is on policy on Congress etc the Trump thing is a progressive trope to keep people like you focused on the wrong things.

The Democratic Party has failed and to keep that fact away from their voting base they push this Trump nonsense and people like you buy it hook line and sinker.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Interesting....."my news source is better". I never said that, but it is interesting you mention that Rubicon does not supply links, or any kind of factual information. Few times I recall from months ago, it was a Russian website and once he used Alex Jones.

So...good question...if he ever cited where he gets his various conspiracies, we might tell.

Oh, speaking of "dumb asses"... do you and your gang EVER READ or just the comics ?

Look stop bearing false witness against me. I am tired of it.

I explained in a previous post on these pages I stopped listing citation , etc because it always ended up with someone denouncing the credibility of the source. so to what avail and doing proper preparation etc.

Secondly I never have read National Inquirer in my life. And if something I referenced was printed in Alex Jones it must have been a story picked up by another news source because I do not frequent Alex Jones. and with so many news sources they have gotten to the point of staling from one another

And as for comics as a source of political news some comic strips such as Mallard Fillmore doing an astonishing job o reflecting the news more accurately then main street media

I started this thread with the premises that the news today is primarily about non-events and it is done so in order to fill the 24/7 void.

I have selected certain journalist, and Television commentators whom I believe have the intelligence and moral character to be non-partisan.

I use this post to once again establish record because we have a few posters out there who seem to take editorial license an at whim

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

"Washington (CNN)Former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden criticized President Donald Trump's attack of CNN over the weekend, saying he could not believe a President was capable of "such an outrageous assault" on a free press or the First Amendment.

The retired United States Air Force four-star general, who is now is a CNN national security analyst, served under the past three administrations.
"If this is who we are or who we are becoming, I have wasted 40 years of my life," Hayden tweeted over the weekend. "Until now it was not possible for me to conceive of an American President capable of such an outrageous assault on truth, a free press or the first amendment."

Ex-CIA Director Hayden blasts Trump's CNN attack - CNNPolitics

Be very careful here because it appears both the CIA and FBI have been politicized. Why does this call for caution? because a politicized intelligence agency quickly turns into the KGB ,Stasi, etc. That is one of the issues in the Russian voter interference deal.

If Trump did what he is accused of then I agree boot him out. However if the intelligence agencies are fabricating this stuff to cover up their malfeasance or to gain more power than the American people are in a heap of trouble . these guys are masters at deception.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

You have really sold out to nothing but conspiracy theories.

"As David Frum has pointed out, what Trump’s surrogates really mean by “the deep state” is the rule of law. The idea that there are civil servants or functionaries within the government whose chief trait is loyalty to the Constitution and to the ongoing administration of the state is intolerable to the autocratic mind. So, if those other actors challenge the White House, they must be taunted, demoralized, and, if possible, dismissed."

The J.F.K. Files, Trump, and the Deep State | The New Yorker

Here's another thought as respects the Administrative State. Ask yourself why is it that despite what Party takes office these long many years government continues to grow, to tax you more, to reduce your freedoms. Old people have been under the yoke for so long they have forgotten and young people never had such freedoms and so they don't know the difference.
If you focus on what people write its often about what they read but do they think for themselves?

what I speak to is sovereignty vs collectives, the individual against collection /groups . we were suppose to have individual freedoms now we have groups telling us whether we can worship or not, own a gun or not, etc. Its all done with smoke and mirrors otherwise known as policy regulations, etc and controlled by the Administrative State. The Administrative State is fixed. they watch a president elected with the thought the guy will be here for only eight years at most but we , we will live forever. Its all a shame

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Be very careful here because it appears both the CIA and FBI have been politicized. Why does this call for caution? because a politicized intelligence agency quickly turns into the KGB ,Stasi, etc. That is one of the issues in the Russian voter interference deal.

If Trump did what he is accused of then I agree boot him out. However if the intelligence agencies are fabricating this stuff to cover up their malfeasance or to gain more power than the American people are in a heap of trouble . these guys are masters at deception.

Personal Best Regards:

"If Trump did what he is accused of then I agree boot him out. However if the intelligence agencies are fabricating this stuff to cover up their malfeasance or to gain more power than the American people are in a heap of trouble . these guys are masters at deception."

First of all I agree with this premise and wonder why it took you this long to stop calling it "made up" or a "hoax" or people just out to get Trump, which you have over and over.

You are now admitting you do not know anything about what this investigation, which I think is heroic and patriotic, might reveal. It NEVER was about Trump, but about how we were attacked by Russia.

HE and YOU have been making it all about him with denials, calling all the parties names, etc.

We do agree and now should only discuss what we know and stop calling everyone names UNTIL WE ACTUALLY KNOW THE RESULTS.

Originally Posted by Guest

Look stop bearing false witness against me. I am tired of it.

I explained in a previous post on these pages I stopped listing citation , etc because it always ended up with someone denouncing the credibility of the source. so to what avail and doing proper preparation etc.

Secondly I never have read National Inquirer in my life. And if something I referenced was printed in Alex Jones it must have been a story picked up by another news source because I do not frequent Alex Jones. and with so many news sources they have gotten to the point of staling from one another

And as for comics as a source of political news some comic strips such as Mallard Fillmore doing an astonishing job o reflecting the news more accurately then main street media

I started this thread with the premises that the news today is primarily about non-events and it is done so in order to fill the 24/7 void.

I have selected certain journalist, and Television commentators whom I believe have the intelligence and moral character to be non-partisan.

I use this post to once again establish record because we have a few posters out there who seem to take editorial license an at whim

Personal Best Regards:

1. I believe, more in this era of crazy web sites, that readers on this forum deserve to know what source you used in coming to your position on an issue. Certainly not on every post, but the prolific number of extreme bizarre websites, the use of bots by foreign powers (as evidenced in congressional hearings) to spread NON facts makes this even more important.

2. I never said you read the National Enquirer, but alluded to the fact that most of your examples of media coverage center on the type of story you would find on their pages (Mrs. Trump shoes, Kardashian). These were given when you were specifically asked for examples of your complaint about media. And Trump does read the Enquirer and has bragged on it quite a bit.

You DID directly refer to Alex Jones at least twice, once saying it was "sent to you".

3. I think you are extremely unfair, among other things, to attack the main stream media, and attack is the correct word, without feeling you need to make a case or give examples. Your criticism has ranged from the Trump Syndrome to lying and distorting, etc. and using Kardashian or a show story is a bit of a "stretch"

The media does a great job.

When the President of the United States flat out lies about being offered a Man of the Year and does so in such a worldwide public way, that's news.

When the President of the United States tears down CNN International, a standard for the world in international reporting, and touts Fox, a well known network who has a very very narrow message, and does it on a world wide stage, that's news.

Those, as I know you know, are just two examples in the past few days of bizarre action by our President. That bizarre behavior, AND ESPECIALLY THE DECEIT AND LYING, is news.

Objecting to the reporting of this kind of behavior is puzzling to me.

Originally Posted by Guest

1. I believe, more in this era of crazy web sites, that readers on this forum deserve to know what source you used in coming to your position on an issue. Certainly not on every post, but the prolific number of extreme bizarre websites, the use of bots by foreign powers (as evidenced in congressional hearings) to spread NON facts makes this even more important.

2. I never said you read the National Enquirer, but alluded to the fact that most of your examples of media coverage center on the type of story you would find on their pages (Mrs. Trump shoes, Kardashian). These were given when you were specifically asked for examples of your complaint about media. And Trump does read the Enquirer and has bragged on it quite a bit.

You DID directly refer to Alex Jones at least twice, once saying it was "sent to you".

3. I think you are extremely unfair, among other things, to attack the main stream media, and attack is the correct word, without feeling you need to make a case or give examples. Your criticism has ranged from the Trump Syndrome to lying and distorting, etc. and using Kardashian or a show story is a bit of a "stretch"

The media does a great job.

When the President of the United States flat out lies about being offered a Man of the Year and does so in such a worldwide public way, that's news.

When the President of the United States tears down CNN International, a standard for the world in international reporting, and touts Fox, a well known network who has a very very narrow message, and does it on a world wide stage, that's news.

Those, as I know you know, are just two examples in the past few days of bizarre action by our President. That bizarre behavior, AND ESPECIALLY THE DECEIT AND LYING, is news.

Objecting to the reporting of this kind of behavior is puzzling to me.

I respect most of the sources for news we have. They do try to get to the facts. Trump does not. He only accepts the news that boosts his colossal ego. And I see little evidence of a conscience in Trump's make-up.

Originally Posted by Guest

I respect most of the sources for news we have. They do try to get to the facts. Trump does not. He only accepts the news that boosts his colossal ego. And I see little evidence of a conscience in Trump's make-up.

In order to have any discussion on a political forum, especially in todays age, we need to know what is influencing posters, ie. source of news. We all know that all sites are not honest either by commission or omission.

We are getting simply anti Trump or love Trump posts and not much that supplies any validity to it, and it certainly in most cases is simply an echo chamber for extreme hard core web sites.

I admit to being anti Trump.....for over a year I have been open about that and why. I give links for almost all my posts because it is important to share that.

Now, many mock my cut and paste or supplying link and post how they do not read them. Their choice but then they waive any consideration by me of even doing anything but mocking whatever they say, especially those weak minded folks who are only happy when the discuss body parts and or use obscenities.

I have been aggressive with those who attack the media as the source for Trump problems (low approvals, etc) because they are very clear that their only concern is that Trump got bad press, NOT WHY, nor the validity of the report. They attack, and it all sounds like a rehash of his tweets, which are never substantiated either.

The media does a good job of reporting facts. We do a lousy job of accepting them.

Originally Posted by Guest

In order to have any discussion on a political forum, especially in todays age, we need to know what is influencing posters, ie. source of news. We all know that all sites are not honest either by commission or omission.

We are getting simply anti Trump or love Trump posts and not much that supplies any validity to it, and it certainly in most cases is simply an echo chamber for extreme hard core web sites.

I admit to being anti Trump.....for over a year I have been open about that and why. I give links for almost all my posts because it is important to share that.

Now, many mock my cut and paste or supplying link and post how they do not read them. Their choice but then they waive any consideration by me of even doing anything but mocking whatever they say, especially those weak minded folks who are only happy when the discuss body parts and or use obscenities.

I have been aggressive with those who attack the media as the source for Trump problems (low approvals, etc) because they are very clear that their only concern is that Trump got bad press, NOT WHY, nor the validity of the report. They attack, and it all sounds like a rehash of his tweets, which are never substantiated either.

The media does a good job of reporting facts. We do a lousy job of accepting them.

Let me fix it for you:

The media does a good job of reporting lies. We do a good job of accepting them.

Originally Posted by guest

let me fix it for you:

The media does a good job of reporting lies. We do a good job of accepting them.

example, please !1