This is why our country is divided.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago
0So here's the thing about investigations , Bill was investigated for his conduct in office , no charges , Hillary has been investigated for her conduct while in office , no charges , Obama is another story however , Trump and his collusion investigation ; Trump"s going to walk !
Given the absolute ineptitude of these investigations reaching any outcomes leading to charges given the severity for instance of BenGhazi , the Emails, " Uranium One " we have absolutely nothing to worry about with Trump being charged in this general fiasco of a "special investigation .You obviously didn’t watch my link. What’s the matter PP, can’t stand to hear the truth?
TSAD: Nope, can't stand Sean Hannity. He has prostituted himself, just like Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin. They call themselves authoritative newscasters until they have been questioned and put in a box and then they say their views are only opinions and they are only entertainers.
Sean Hannity and Trump have a mutual admiration thing going on. Whenever Trump gets criticized, he runs to Hannity to have his feathers smoothed out. Hannity also feeds Trump misinformation, that Trump tweets. I don't know how much pot, it will take to make me watch Hannity.Who are you kidding, you start and end your day with a toke that’s obvious, we all know what you are smoking. After all if you know so much about Trump and Hannity you have to be smoking a lot in order to watch him since you know so much of what he is doing and admit yourself you have to smoke a lot of pot to watch him. PP: “I don't know how much pot, it will take to make me watch Hannity.” Oh my friend I’m sure you do!
Well somebody loves Shawn...
Sean Hannity Unrivaled As Fox News Posts 66th Consecutive Quarter At No. 1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … ba93f5536d
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratingsSharlee: You love him so much, you missed spelled his name. It's Sean, not Shawn.
Typical of PP, he cares nothing about the facts and focuses on a typo. Just like he focused on Hannity and threw in Rush Limbaugh and Levin when non of them had anything to do with the facts of the link I posted which were being presented by Giuliani. PP is so pathetically transparent when he is presented with truth he can’t honestly refute he always tries to change the subject by attacking the messenger, in this case it wasn’t even the messenger but the interviewer and people that had nothing to do with the interview - if that’s not evidence he’s smoking pot, well just wait for more.
I caught on to PP pretty quickly. Likes to hear himself talk. But all I read are a lot of regurgitated thoughts.
Left wing talking points, I think they pay him to make them up.
TSAD: Who pays you to make fun of and ridicule people you don't like? I've seen you do it over and over again. You hate liberals with a passion and become very ugly in your comments.
I rose by any other name... He is still number one. My little mistake doesn't change that now does it?
sharlee: I saw Hannity's name and picture on the site and I thought it was a You Tube presentation. So I didn't watch it. I just went back and saw that both links were stats for Fox News and Cable News. I read both of them. And Hannity and Fox News are very popular. To me that means the country has really become brainwashed with fake news from Fox and the real new is in the minority. In part because Trump wants it that way.
I have never smoked pot and never will. I was just trying to bring some levity into the picture. But I can understand why you thought it was the truth. It's because conservatives can't relate to satire, like Bill Maher and Trevor Noah.
I'm confused I didn't see anything about Guiliani in those two links.
I don't just regurgitate my thoughts. I try to present facts, like Chris Collins. That was straight from the New York Attorney's presentation, including the FBI and the SEC with charts from the presentation. If you don't believe it. That is your problem. They even brought up the fact that Collins was one of Trump's first supporters, not my idea or thought." To me, that means the country has really become brainwashed with fake news from Fox and the real new is in the minority."
So, I am I to understand you feel people that watch Fox news are being brainwashed? You have offered your opinion, now here is mine.
What I have observed in regards to comparing cable media is that CNN MSNBC and Fox is that Fox reports all the news. The other two dwell 24/7 on Trump bashing. They report nothing of his accomplishments, in fact, they report very little of any other form of news. It's surprising to me that anyone can watch this kind of reporting? It has become pure propaganda. Fox backs up their reports with facts, not skewed sentences meant to change the context of a story. CNN and Msnbc spew nothing but hateful rhetoric. This is most likely why their ratings have suffered? I don't think people have turned to Fox because they are "brainwashed". I think more watch Fox because they report the news without bias. Now certainly it is clear some of the show hosts lean right but still, keep to the truth.
I have not been following your posts on Collin's. It certainly appeared he did commit insider trading. As did Pelosi and her husband. Not sure we had to make it political? Insider trading goes on daily, very easy to spot as a rule, but very hard to prove. Your charts show good proof of insider trading in regard to Collin's. Pelosi beat it, Collin's may too... If he committed insider trading, he should incur punishment for breaking the law.Of course sharlee, Collins is guilty because his highness PP has spoken! Why would you question him or his assertion there is never anything wrong with him, anyone who disagrees with him is brainwashed. With psychos it is always everybody else who is insane, never them, never. If you followed PP you’dknow He is never brainwashed, but the entire world outside his bubble is brainwashed - clinical psychosis at the very best.
PP is a product of big government. His whole career is in big government. It is like if you are a hammer, the whole world looks to you like a nail.
His expertise is in statistics and numbers and data. He sees the tree but misses the forest.Jack, you sure you are not brainwashed? You watch Fox don’t you? PP has already declared YOU are brainwashed so nothing you say is worthy of consideration.
You don’t have to read my comments. It is a free country and we have the 1st Amendment. I do watch Fox and listen to Rush and Mark and Michael Savage...and I am smarter than most.
To take the position that Fox news is biased just to go to show how biased you are. I have news for you. All media are biased...
Anyone who thinks cable TV news channels is real news is simply naive about how they work.
Unlike newspapers, they don't follow journalism standards of objectivity, fact checking and bias review.
They chase viewers with what their viewers want to see. In the case of Fox, it offers a right-wing, pro-Trump perspective. MSNBC does the opposite. CNN is simply anti Trump because Trump is anti CNN.
So any argument about which one is more biased is simply a waste of time.Well said BINGO... Sorry I fell into the deflect.
I think you re confusing me with another person or you are possibly deflecting
"I have never smoked pot and never will. I was just trying to bring some levity into the picture. But I can understand why you thought it was the truth. It's because conservatives can't relate to satire, like Bill Maher and Trevor Noah."
You may be confusing one of my comments with someone else. I did not respond to your pot quip?
"I'm confused I didn't see anything about Guiliani in those two links"
Have I not mentioned Guiliani in any of my posts either?Sharlee: You are right, both of those were TSAD. That's what happens when I reply at 11 p.m. ..sorry. These threads do get confusing when you are away for a while and try to comment on an older reply. Oh please, I don't mean you are older.
All very ,very distant from Trump involvement , Face it Peoplepower Mueller's guilty of grasping at straws just as much as your obstruction party .IT's even becoming more and more proven to the american public that the left is the most corrupt ,the Clintons paying for the dossier , corruption in the deepest parts of the obama administration , the DOJ , The FBI , look at yourselves ! You are so desperate for ANY "evidence " that all you have indicted is your own corrupt freeekin party !
Wake up , smell the coffee , it's a new morning .
To boot , you have no party platform for 2020 , no candidate that isn't insane{Cortez } or all used up {Biden }, out of their minds {Harris , Kaine , Cuomo , De Blasio , Sanders , }.............Your party should just hang it up and regroup for a few years and let the real leaders lead !ahorseback: I'm sure you know the story about the tortoise and the hare? Mueller is the tortoise and Guilani is the hare. Guilanai and Trump are busy trying to get away from Mueller, but they are going to burn themselves out and Mueller will win the race.
He is also like a mole. He works underground and does not give Trump the time of day. He is smart that way, because he knows Trump will attack him. But one day when he is ready he will pop-up. It just drives Trump and company crazy.
Can you imagine Guiliani telling Mueller, you can interview Trump, but don't ask any questions where he can perjury himself. That's like saying you robbed a bank and you can only ask me questions where I don't incriminate myself.Trump won't be interviewed thus ending the Mueller corruption non-investigation , In about two years you on the left will have invented five more phony-issues for obstruction and YOU will even have to be reminded who Mueller even was , Don't worry though , I'll be there to remind.
ahorseback: Just like you and others remind us of Hillary, Obama, Bill, and others everyday. It's called whataboutism...what about Hillary; what about Obama; What about the email; what about the deep state; and Obama's secret spy ring? Hillary colluded, but Trump didn't.
Hillary was also working with rouge nations to make more money. That's why her cell phones were smashed. Hillary is crooked, Obama was inept as president and he lied and cheated and that why the liberals screwed up the country.
If Trump has nothing to hide, why won't he be interviewed? Why won't he release his tax returns?"If Trump has nothing to hide, why won't he be interviewed? Why won't he release his tax returns?" Ask Bill Clinton...
Oh, thank you for recognizing a few of the Clinton grifts. You forgot many, but so did the Obama DOJ. But, we have a new administration now... Have you checked out all the new Bruce Ohr stuff? Pretty interesting. Hillary must be feeling hot breath at her back, and she is so much slower these days. Too bad Obama hooked up with Hillie and Billie.
As a millennial, I see that my generation's point of view gets overlooked, ignored, and sometimes treated like it's stupid. The generations before us seem to think that just because we see things differently we are wrong. I know not everyone is like that but I come from a very conservative, Republican dominant town. I often see the great divide in our country as being the younger vs the older generation. However both sides, Democrat and Republican, have points that they really suck as a political party. (i know someone is going to make a rude comment to this). Take Gun control for example. Democrats usually want more of it but Republicans start picketing saying "Don't take my guns". In reality, most everything I've seen on the subject is not about taking away guns. (i said most). It's about better control on who can have them.
Just so everyone knows I'm really not confrontational so I hardly ever post about these things and you can attack me online all you want because I don't respond to anything hateful. However, if you want to debate, I'm up for it.Perhaps the millennial looks only at the surface without ever digging any deeper? Example: what is the real difference, in the effect on the people, between saying "You and you can't have a gun" and saying "You and you give me your guns"? What is the difference between saying "If you have a gun that I decide to define as an 'assault weapon' because I can frighten the ignorant with that terminology, then you must give it to me" and saying "give me your guns"?
Often times the "You and you" that gun control reform bills effect has nothing to do with everyday law abiding citizens. A lot of what people are trying to push is taking away guns from people that have mental disorders. However, I do understand your viewpoint on assault weapons and that is a perfect example of when people need to learn the difference between semi-auto and automatic. This is also where the media fails us by showing us the extreme left and the extreme right.
Just asking your opinion. How do you feel about people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and ptsd having guns?He is in favor of it. I have asked him many times.
Raven B: Welcome to my forum. You are a breath of fresh air.
Welcome, Raven. You make thoughtful points. If you get attacked, most likely it will come from extremists.
I agree both parties have serious problems because both parties are under too much influence from extremist voters and campaign contributors.
I applaud your independence and rational opinions. I hope you keep posting.Gun control will be transformed within 25 years.
All you have to do is look at the vanguard Liberal states to see where it is going (NY and CA). It is becoming very hard if not illegal to own any weapon that can be converted to automatic in those states. In order to carry a weapon in those states the hurdles an individual faces is excessive. These States are on a Progressive march to reach the ultimate goal of making them illegal completely.
To own a gun in Germany a person must be 18 years old.
Prove trustworthiness through an interview (and a full psychiatric interview).
Demonstrate personal adequacy and expert knowledge (train once a month at a shooting range for one year straight).
Show a necessity for needing a firearm.
Buy personal insurance for the weapon and your use of it.
Allow a firearms expert to ensure you are storing and transporting the weapons safely.
Have no history of drug or alcohol abuse.
Have no history of any violence.
Have no felony convictions.
Have no history of mental illness.
Within 25 years both NY and CA will be far stricter than that, as will many other states in America.
Now, that said, look at reality and consider Arizona where with a few common sense exceptions there are no restrictions on guns. The registration of firearms is not necessary. In addition, there is no requirement of permits or application for license to purchase, posses, or carry firearms.
People walk around the streets of Arizona with guns on their hips, and this is the primary reason why they don't have mass shootings in Arizona. Not that there haven't been attempts in Arizona, there have been, but when every other person is carrying a pistol, those attacks don't get very far.
Now lets consider the worst mass murders we have seen in the last decade. Mostly focused on schools and churches, where guns are strictly prohibited and there is no protection/defense for the people there.
A couple of the exceptions to that, was a night club, and a theatre, both places where guns are not allowed. In the case of the theatre it was in a 'no guns allowed' community.
Mental instability, proven by doctors and medical history, should be an absolute bar from these people ever owning a gun. This is just common sense, if the person is a threat to themselves and the public, their rights to owning a gun should be forfeited just like their rights to freedom in general is restricted. That the NRA has fought against this is what has turned me off from the NRA... the NRA used to be about teaching citizens and youth about handling guns properly and having respect for them. Now they spend their money fighting court battles so the insane can have access to guns.
You have to choose where and when to pick your battles, and considering some 10-to-20% of Americans have to be on psychotropic drugs just to be allowed (able to function) in public, that's 10-to-20% of the population that should never be allowed near a gun.
If restrictions on the mentally unstable and known terrorist affiliation individuals had been in place, keeping them from having access to guns, almost every single mass shooting that has occurred in the past dozen years may have been averted.And the female Russian spy had no trouble finding either approval or companionship in the NRA. Yes, the NRA is subject to being corrupted, as is any powerful organization.
That is a difference between conservatives and progressives, I don't see how creating a Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson environment as something that is moving us forward on this issue.
The idea of large numbers of people walking about armed is just going to prompt more shootings rather than prevent them.
There is no taking "one side" or the other. This is clearly a conservative attitude and will always rub against my grain.
Imagine, some insanity in Texas suggesting that students on College campuses be allowed to conceal carry? That is just great, an 18 year old dealing with learning proper control of the mix of gasoline and alcohol, now we add gunpowder to the mix?
I agree with the majority of what you are saying, Ken Burgess.
I haven't looked into other countries laws on guns. So I don't have much to say about it but If something is working in another country I see no reason that we shouldn't learn from them.
Just a little tidbit of info. In 1967 The NRA supported an open carry ban in California.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-c … carry-ban/
Credence2, I do believe that people should have to have training and laws should be in place such as don't carry a weapon while under the influence. However, It is hard to ignore the fact that Arizona has very little problems with mass shootings. So maybe this their gun policies make group setting safer. But if you look at Arizona's other statistics you can see that just because there aren't mass shootings does not mean that there isn't gun violence. In 2016 AZ had 1,094 Gun deaths, 303 of those were homicides, 755 were suicides, 10 undecided, and 11 from legal intervention.Thanks, Raven B.
When you look at Arizona, there is no requirement for training to purchase or own a gun.
I would say the Arizona is not exemplary in regards to avoiding mass shooting there are more than a handful of states that are less far less violent than Arizona. U.S House of Representative Giffords was shot and almost killed by a shooter having a semi-automatic weapon and there was some fatalities resulting from this shooting, this just in 2011.
The idea that would people want to live in a society where everybody is armed, assures that there will be more gun related fatalities. We as a society and culture should have long evolved beyond the paradyme of the American Wild West. But, not so with conservatives....Welcome Hard Sun, Randy Goodwin, Raven B, and Credence 2. So glad you guys are on board. It's nice to hear the sound of reasonableness again.
There is still some sanity in America. Whenever Trumpians start the passive aggressive rants and then try to play the victim, I always think of this pic. This is the political environment they wanted. They wanted to further divide America and thought it was funny. Anyone who disagrees with them is a "snowflake" yet when you talk bad about Trump they act like you desecrated a sacred religious icon. Snowflakes are kinda cool anyway.
You admittedly had the job of lobbying and promoting this kind of hate , Yet , now you stand offended by all the hate you helped create ?
Isn't that interesting ?Not quite lobbying for Trump style hate, but I did what it took to feed my family and am glad I don't have to do that anymore. The hate is in your, and these individual's hearts anyway. Who are you horsey? I'm done with the horse with no name for awhile. It gets old exposing your foolishness.
"Not quite............... " that kind of like "well maybe " ?
Yet for me , It never" gets old " exposing the hypocrisy of some people , it actually gets easier the more they expose themselves .
Well you are the hate manipulated by the lobbyists. At least they made some money on the deal...so what the hell horsey? Got the tissues. Horsey hate but good horses can't vote anyway..
And with that brilliance , It's no wonder you WERE a lobbyist .
I quit after being made a team leader. It just wasn't what I wanted and I make way more per hour now. I'm glad you take such interest. It shows you that deep down you respect free thinkers. Anyway, I can give you the website to apply, but there's no way you will pass the writing test to even begin.
And I'm not even surprised , Lobbyists are the worst part of the government in all our US history , You should actually all be in federal jail now with the keys lost .
I am actually proud that I couldn't have been one .I'm not surprised either. You're proud to have poor writing skills. That says too much.
Jail for doing nothing illegal? Sounds kinda un-American or very un-American. If it was illegal Donald Trump would be in jail. So you want Trump in jail. He lobbied for many things. Besides, lobbyists are not part of the government horsey.
If stupidity was a jail-able offense, you'd never see daylight horsey.
Take your meds, and I dare you to reply. Slug bug.Finally, 70 real news media outlets are going to do something about Trump calling them the fake news and the enemy of the people. It has been 19 months that they have put up with his BS and his supporters being brainwashed. This has all been done by Trump, so if the real news says something negative about him, his supporters won't believe them. This has gone on long enough. It should have been stopped long ago.
https://wapo.st/2MlqTyw?tid=ss_tw&u … 6192277919Damn, I was hoping that they were going to list of those 70, so I could know definitively which were propaganda outlets that I could now ignore.
I mean, we know the big ones. NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, WPost, complete garbage filled with the most biased corporate hacks in the business. It would be nice if the rest of the frauds stood up and labeled themselves as well.
The State machine is ramping up, people's Youtube channels, Facebook pages, and independent websites are being shut down. Fox News is under radical transformation only a couple of old timers like Hannity left to clean out, and his time is coming... pretty soon, we will all be hearing the same 'Think-Speak'.Pretty soon we will only be hearing truth along with opinon pieces that some people don't like. No more pizzagate and Harry and the Henderson stories OMG what will Trump fans do. He will keep them in their dose of entertaining conspiracy theories, no worries. This has gone way too far.
Presidents have a right to question the media and most have. They have no right to start a war against their own people. Trump's day will come though.Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes, and a lawsuit that revealed how good'ol Bill Clinton took more than two dozen trips to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean where he 'kept young women as sex slaves'... was a lie?
The Clinton's connections to Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein and the depths of his sexual depredations... were lies?
I think you are right, it is much better that we just ignore such rumors, keep that Conspiracy of Silence going, just because there is a bit of smoke, doesn't mean there is any fire... after all CNN told us so.I could not care less about the Clintons. However, Fake news. That's all that needs to be said, right? No clear evidence, no collusion.
Your statement that soon we will be rid of 'Fake News' that is not entirely correct, what we will have is an Internet that is scrubbed of all Free Speech that does not pass State approval.
Much like they have in China, where it is impossible to find information and websites even if you know they exist, they are unreachable from within China.
Our move in that direction has already begun. A decade from now, I suspect such conversation as we see in this thread covering some of the topics touched on here, will be verboten.
Not in the sense that they will come to your house and arrest you, though they might, they do that in the U.K. right now, so it is not a stretch to imagine that becoming the norm here in America soon enough...
Rather, I believe they will have developed AI that will remove/delete any post, video, message, etc. that you make, that it doesn't approve of.
Your ability to insult another person will be stripped away. Your ability to bring up a controversial topic, like say, make a statement that the Twin Towers were taken down by explosives and the whole attack was staged, will simply be erased.
Your ability to communicate such thoughts and ideas will be silenced.Maybe. Maybe not. However, I see free-speech threats coming from both sides of the spectrum. Trump is threatening the Free Press in his supposed bid to stop fake news, then we have the occurrences of right-wingers threatening people for making their opinions known. There are many examples of this as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/opin … media.html
Also, private businesses have every right to stop content they feel is inappropriate . The vast majority of them use this in bipartisan ways. I know this first hand.There is a monumental difference between a President ranting about fake news, and State approved removal of all content and posts deemed unacceptable from the Internet, a silencing of any topic deemed unfit.
The argument that 'private business has a right' is a farce, its comical, the Chinese enforce it, the EU now enforces it, and it is being enforced here as well... if you think it is just coincidence that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are banning the same people, on the same day, across all platforms, you are living in denial of a reality that is rather obvious and easy to verify.
The censorship occurring now, is just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. Thought Speak 1984... getting closer everyday."a silencing of any topic deemed unfit."
Really, If that were so, I'd think they would deem your writings unfit, but they don't seem to be silenced. Businesses should and do have the right to stop what it deems to be hate speech from being spread using its resources. Alex Jones can have his own site, his own newspaper, whatever, but that doesn't mean he makes FB decisions.
Also, since Trump is the President, aren't his "rantings" about NFL suspensions and what not government sanctioned? It is comical to have it both ways.
It always has to come down to personal attacks. I'm living in denial, but you support Trump. The biggest enemy of free speech in America.
"“It is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should look into it,” he said." So, if FB, Twitter, etc. is following anyone's orders, isn't it Trump's orders? It just so happens that the most disgusting lies are generated from people of his ilk.
So, if it's deemed disgusting by Trump it should be stopped? You're argument is not holding up. Trump is the biggest perpetrator of thought speak and his supporters regularly threaten reporters when they disagree with opinion pieces. This is a direct result of his attack on free speech.
This conversation ended up like my conversations with horsey.."wake up" no, you "wake up." This is not productive. I'm against stifling free speech no matter the kind, but private businesses, and business owners, and reporters, DO have rights.Ken: I know you think we are headed for a 1984 type of dystopian state, but do you think Trump calling the MSM fake news and the enemy of the people for 19 months is just ranting by a president? Do you think it is has no effect on how the country feels about the MSM?
All this talk about TDS but hasn't much of this arisen due to MDS or Media Derangement Syndrome? This extremism supports conspiracy theories and justifies all sorts of bad behavior.
I may be veering a little off topic from this line of discussion here but on the division topic, what if we had a President that could speak of problems in the media without simply screaming Fake news, No collusion, etc? I'm not sure Trump can speak about any problem without denigrating and dividing. However, this seems to be the only language a group of Americans understand these days. If a politician is not downgrading someone, then he/she is not speaking truthfully or bluntly. There's a lot of talk here about being able to discuss things rationally, but, when the President cannot do so, and people support him in these actions, how can Americans be expected to bridge divides and be more respectful toward one another? It starts at the top. All we have to do is just look at his Twitter feed."There's a lot of talk here about being able to discuss things rationally, but, when the President cannot do so, and people support him in these actions, how can Americans be expected to bridge divides and be more respectful toward one another? It starts at the top. All we have to do is just look at his Twitter feed."
"and people support him in these actions" This statement certainly puts lots of people into one group? It is very opinionated and supports groupthink. It makes me feel your opinion is directed against one group of people. Do you have the right to categorize someone else thought process? Some that support Trump compartmentalizes., appreciate his agenda, and work his ethics, but are disgusted by his tweets. Many appreciate Trump's lack of political correctness, and but his tweets in the transparency compartment. Maybe we need to respect others, and not feel a form of superiority. You might want to consider, many actually believe media has become "fake". It's not so hard to become disgusted by media networks that only promote negative stories in regards to the president. This may be the reason many have made Fox the number one network. They report both sides, and not to mention other news. So, I think when you speak of people that support him, you might want to consider, there are many that do so... And they do so for different reasons.
So, could we be fair when posting comments? PP , has made a good point. We may need some guidelines, that may work to keep us all civil?"and people support him in these actions"
People do support his actions. I stand by this statement and see nothing wrong with it. I made no statement as to why they may support his actions. I feel you made a victim of yourself here for no good reason.Sharlee: Let's try something here. You give me one good reason why you think it is O.K. for Trump to call the MSM and its reporters the fake news and the enemy of the people. And I will give you one good reason why I think it is not O.K. and lets see if we can meet somewhere in the middle.
I have repeated this many times, I don't appreciate much of what president Trump tweets. I do as stated feel the media has been very bias in their coverage of the president. You asked for an example.
Last week the Hill posted very condemning emails of Bruce Ohr. , and actually if one took the time to read them one would walk away with a very bad feeling that these emails very much prove an investigation into the questionable dossier was indeed needed. Now saying that I will not speculate any of all the evidence that has come out in regards to that investigation. Because it would literally be just talking points. I prefer to see what the multiple investigations turn up in the way of facts that they stand behind.
The point I hope to make, CNN MSNBC did not cover the Ohr emails. I find this odd at best. The emails are factual, have been photoed and posted for all to read online at the Hill. No one has denied they are not valid. I find the two mentioned networks pick and choose what they will report. These emails are very compelling and newsworthy.
Don Lemon "Lemon said. "During the theater shooting in Colorado, I was able to go and buy an automatic weapon, and I maybe have shot a gun three, four times in my life. I don’t live in Colorado. I think most people can go out and buy an automatic weapon."
CNN Jim Acosta reported and tweeted WH "president Trump did not visit Steve Scalice at the hospital or visit the room he was treated in"... he later recanted the story without apology.
I have given two, the first I find to be very deceiving. The second I find petty. Yet this kind of petty comments may lead to a bias if compiled daily. It is very clear Trump's personality and character is attacked daily by media. Much of the rhetoric is in the form of character insults.So what I asked for is one reason why you think Trump is O.K. in saying that the MSM is fake news and the enemy of the people.
You gave one citing of Bruce Ohr, but you are not going to speculate about the outcome...so then CNN and MSNBC did not cover the Ohr emails...to the best of your knowledge. So therefore, they are fake and the enemy of the people? Here is CNN's coverage of Ohr. You have to read almost down to the bottom.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics … index.html
So the other two examples you cited, you find are very deceiving and petty. And this is justifies to you why Trump is O.K. in calling the MSM fake news and enemy of the people.?
O.K. So now it is my turn as to why I think it is not O.K. for Trump to call the MSM the fake news and the enemy of the people.
When Trump is in his rallies, and he says, "Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening," Trump said. "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news."
He is discrediting the MSM. Who is he referring to when he says Just stick with us? As far as accuracy and bias, I think that you can agree it is on both sides and it is probably equal.
However, when he spouts that rhetoric in rallies and press conferences and points out specific reporters as enemies of the people, it has profound effects on the people who have blind faith in him.
They will believe anything his says and act on it. He is dividing the country, not unifying it. He has the right to say what he wants, but he has a responsibility to the people to present the truth and try to unify the country.
Just because you found a couple of examples doesn't make it the fake news and the enemy of the people. You know I can do exactly the same thing with Fox News, but that doesn't make it the fake news and their reporters the enemy of the people.
Where do you think the middle ground is here?I provided a couple media incidence of that I felt leaned to being bias.
"I have repeated this many times, I don't appreciate much of what president Trump tweets. I do as stated feel the media has been very bias in their coverage of the president. You asked for an example."
I don't appreciate or would I defend most of Trump's tweets. I don't agree with the president Trump calling the media "fake". I would have no problem with Trump calling a given report bias, but fake, no.
I think we agree on it being wrong for Trump to address the media as fake. I don't feel it at all fair of him to use that language at rallies, and yes I am sure many love it, but keep in mind, many don't.Sharlee: So we both agree that is wrong for Trump to call the MSM fake news and that he shouldn't use that language in his rallies and news conferences.
I think the people in his rallies love it. The harm comes from them passing it on to others who are not tuned to the news and will just accept it in blind faith. But we all know words have consequences He benefits from it, because that is one way he energizes his base, while discrediting the other side
But we did reach middle ground...good job, Thank you.I don't think it is wrong at all to call out some news agencies 'fake news'.
Many, many Americans realized long before Trump came along that the MSM misinforms its viewers and misrepresents the truth.
It is the world we live in today, news agencies are owned by multi-billion dollar corporations and billionaires, and they present the news in whatever fashion those corporations and billionaires want it presented.
Much the same way that those Politicians in D.C. that have been there for more than thirty years, and have made themselves into multi-millionaires somehow, serve the corporations and billionaires.
I am not saying Trump is a great guy, I'm not saying he isn't in it for himself (that is a different topic), what I am saying is that those who have had control of D.C. for decades now (those who control the politicians and positions that matter in D.C.) do not, and never did support Trump.
And those politicians, and the media at large, have opposed him, with 'fake news' and with 'fake charges' and calls for impeachment.
D.C. is full of corrupt politicians and Pentagon bureaucrats, so long as there are enough corrupt Congressmen/women who will do the wrong things for Americans, and for America's future, it is just as bad as any dictatorship... the only difference is there is an illusion of 'democracy'.
We have dozens of politicians that have up and decided not to run for office again, and while we cannot be certain as to why there is such an exodus going on, we can guess.
We have at least half a dozen high ranking FBI agents that have been fired since Trump became President, with more firings and findings to come, and that speaks volumes as to the amount of corruption and criminality going on in that government branch.
With a dictatorship you can identify the evil, and work to overthrow it. With a false 'democracy' most of the people remain ignorant of the truth, and will fight those who are trying to expose the corruption and criminal activity being done.
I realize it is a lot easier for many to lump all their fears and hates together and have Trump be the embodiment of their sum.
In general there are a lot of reasons to vilify Trump rather than confront the idea that our government has been corrupt for decades, and has worked against our best interests.Ken, It is very clear we are of the same mindset when it comes to president Trump. However, would it not be better for Trump instead of calling the media "Fake" to just point out what he feels untrue? Giving examples of perhaps mistruths, this might go much further to point out media bias. Yes, the term Fake news" is powerful, but to me, it would be more powerful to point out an incident of media telling lies. To me, it's clear the media is creating a bias against the president by attacking him mostly with his words...
"I am not saying Trump is a great guy, I'm not saying he isn't in it for himself". Totally agree...Ken:
K: Many, many Americans realized long before Trump came along that the MSM misinforms its viewers and misrepresents the truth.
M: Who are these "many, many Americans" ? That is a generalization until you can give specifics.
K: And those politicians, and the media at large, have opposed him, with 'fake news' and with 'fake charges' and calls for impeachment.
M: Again, this is also a generalization about "fake news and fake charges"
K:We have at least half a dozen high ranking FBI agents that have been fired since Trump became President, with more firings and findings to come, and that speaks volumes as to the amount of corruption and criminality going on in that government branch.
M: Trump wants many of them fired He wants them out of the way because of the ongoing Mueller investigation.
K: I realize it is a lot easier for many to lump all their fears and hates together and have Trump be the embodiment of their sum.
M: Don't forget, Trump is the one who started calling the MSM the fake news and its reporters the enemy of the people. He also is the one that started siding with Fox News. Most presidents hate be questioned by the media. But Trump, to my knowledge is the first one to pick sides.
What people are missing is the "ear piece." While the anchors of these news shows are interviewing their guests, they are being told what to say and what questions to ask by their directors and producers who are working behind the scenes and communicating to them via their ear pieces. This holds true for not only the MSM but fox news and its cohorts.
"A new Survey Monkey poll from the website Axios shows the overwhelming majority of Americans (70 percent) believe that “traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading.” This goes far beyond the voters who approve of Trump’s performance as president.
A majority of Republicans (92 percent), independents (79 percent), and even Democrats (53 percent) agreed that "traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false or purposely misleading” “a lot” or at least “sometimes.” - END
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ti … inues-sink
"The web survey of 1,440 Gallup Panel members sought to quantify exactly how much problematic information people believe they encounter in traditional news media as well as on social media.
Overall, U.S. adults estimate that 62% of the news they read in newspapers, see on television or hear on the radio is biased. They think the news media mostly provide accurate information, but still estimate that 44% of what they see is inaccurate. And they believe that more than a third of the news they see in these channels is misinformation -- false or inaccurate information that is presented as if it were true. - END
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/ … news.aspx?
I believe without any great effort, you could find plenty of evidence that between 60-70% of Americans distrust MSM news and believe it to be biased, fabricated, or false.
The biggest problem with the MSM today, as well as D.C. insiders, they underestimate the intelligence and overall awareness of 'average' Americans. They buy into their own BS, and phony storylines more than the average Joe and Jane do.
If there wasn't such a disconnect between the D.C. establishment & the media that supports it and the people, we wouldn't have the rising level of distrust and disbelief in Americans that we currently have.
Its one of the interesting things about the debates we have here on Hubpages, more than a few here have backgrounds in publishing and government, and their viewpoints oftentimes align themselves far more closely with the MSM POV than those Americans that have no such background and view things (especially related to the government) with a far more critical eye.Ken: I read your Gallup Poll link. There is also a link to the full report and here is the conclusion of the full report.
"To a large degree, bias and accuracy appear to be in the eye of the beholder, greatly influenced by whether one agrees with the ideological leaning of the news source. Americans’ perceptions of fairly widespread bias and inaccuracy in news may be unduly influenced by the bias they perceive from the “other side” of the ideological spectrum rather than their own side.
Counteracting perceptions of bias and inaccuracy may have a role to play in addressing the lack of trust in the news media and giving Americans more confidence in the media’s ability to carry out its democratic responsibilities."
This morning I was watching CNN and it was about the closing arguments of the Manafort trial. I switched to Fox and they were talking about how Trump has influenced the mid-term elections in favor of the GOP.
Was CNN biased? No
Was CNN presenting inaccurate information? No
Was any of it fake? No
Was Fox biased? No
Was Fox presenting inaccurate information? No
Was any of it fake? No
The difference is both news sources have a different focus because they are both appealing to their audiences interest. Don't forget Trump is the one who calls MSM the fake news and the enemy of the people.
As you say people may have perceived it before Trump started saying it. However, he is the one who brought to the forefront.
Granted, news sources make mistakes and present inaccuracies, but for the most part I don't think it is done with the intention of miss-leading the public.
According to the Gallup Poll conclusion, "To a large degree, bias and accuracy appear to be in the eye of the beholder, greatly influenced by whether one agrees with the ideological leaning of the news source."
In other words, it is confirmation bias. where the tendency is to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. In this sense, it is the audience that is biased, not the news source.
According to Jonathan Haidt, a Professor of Moral Psychology and author of Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion
He states: "We reason not to reconstruct the actual reason why we came to a particular judgment. We reason to find the best possible reasons why somebody else ought to join us in our judgment."
I think this is what we do in these forums. We are trying to confirm our own bias, by how we have interpreted others comments and what we hear and see on our news sources.Thank you hard sun. I read that conclusion last night and thought I would apply it this morning to both CNN and Fox and it really seems to fit. The problem is Trump keeps perpetuating it. He needs an enemy so that he can look like the hero to his base. If he stopped talking about it, he would have to blame someone or something else, so this is very convenient for him.
"You gave one citing of Bruce Ohr, but you are not going to speculate about the outcome...so then CNN and MSNBC did not cover the Ohr emails...to the best of your knowledge. So therefore, they are fake and the enemy of the people? Here is CNN's coverage of Ohr. You have to read almost down to the bottom."
The middle ground would be media cover the story on Bruce Ohr, as well as the others that have been fired from the FBI. In reality, the Ohr, as well as the other persons that were let, go from the FBI can be followed up with actual documentation of their behavior. Where is much of what is reported on Trump is hearsay without naming resources. I would think the more interesting of the two would be a story that can be backed by documentation such as the Ohr emails. Yet CNN or MSNBC is not reporting the story. Seems bias to me... Another example, Mueller seems to be keeping leaks to a minimum. Yet CNN and MSNBC certainly have produced stories that on the investigation that is widely based on speculation. I would appreciate it if they were going to speculate they do it without bias. Such as covering the investigation into the dossier revelations. It's a compelling trail, and certainly, there are some physical names and faces as well as physical documentation to back the investigation.
I have given an example of what I would consider a middle ground. I have no wish to discuss the dossier investigation. Because once again I think it futile to expel the energy until more evidence is presented or it simply goes nowhere.Sharlee: Is Fox covering the Ohr story? What speculation have you heard from CNN about Mueller and the investigation?
See this kind of supports my point about both news sources have their own focus that is of interest to their audiences
I agree with you, it is an exercise in futility until the dossier investigation is brought to a conclusion. Here is what I found out about it. You may want to do more research about it.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/58604049 … he-dossierYou asked for middle ground. A middle ground would be fair coverage of all the news. The dossier and newest information have not been reported in regards to the dossier and how it was used to obtain FISA warrants, as well as all the players that have come into light the past few months. Your article was informative and laid out a good scenario of the birth and concerns in regards to the dossier. However, it is an old article and much Judicial Watch.
https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch/statu … gr%5Etweet
This should be worthy of being reported by all cable media.
Yes, your point that when Trump blows a very blunt dog whistle in regards to labeling the media "fake" it spreads from person to person. Just as do reports of Trump's son meeting with a Russian in Trump tower point to President Trump colluding with Russians or a talk jock claiming the president is a racist or promoting a pron stars story night after night after the president gave a statement and denied her claims. Was either of these stories backed in truth? We don't know, however, do you think people watching these new shows did not spread the story? It is clear there are two sides to the media both spread their own chosen bias, and many people have chosen their preference. There is little in-between. This has lead to division. It appears each side seeks to keep their own believing a certain way, without question. It seems to take little to keep a "herds" together. Why, because we have support from our counterparts. Many don't care about facts. Some don't ever ask "what if I am wrong"? We seem to just keep trying to yell louder.
I provided a couple media incidence of that I felt leaned to being bias.
"I have repeated this many times, I don't appreciate much of what president Trump tweets. I do as stated feel the media has been very bias in their coverage of the president. You asked for an example."
I don't appreciate or would I defend most of Trump's tweets. I don't agree with the president Trump calling the media "fake". I would have no problem with Trump calling a given report bias, but fake, no.
I think we agree on it being wrong for Trump to address the media as fake. I don't feel it at all fair of him to use that language at rallies, and yes I am sure many love it, but keep in mind, many don't.
Sorry, you saw it that way. To be more explicit. I was just trying to make the point people should not be put into one compartment, because most are multicompartmental. Diverse in their opinion of the president. Yes, some people support Trump lock stock and barrel, some like somethings about his presidency and dislike some other things. And no you did not make any statements as to why some support Trump.
" I'm not sure Trump can speak about any problem without denigrating and dividing. However, this seems to be the only language a group of Americans understand these days. If a politician is not downgrading someone, then he/she is not speaking truthfully or bluntly."
Does this statement, not reak of putting a large "group" that approves of "downgrading someone"? You have lumped a group of us that support Trump into supporting downgrading someone... Maybe not meaning to do so? As I said everyone had reasons for voting for Trump. Many could care less about his ranting on twitter. I look for results in his job performance at this point, I learned early on I did not appreciate his ranting on twitter.
You certainly have a right to stand by your opinion, as I do mine.So, your'e basically stating I cannot criticize the way an unnamed group of Americans conduct themselves. If you don't fall into this group than don't take offense. This is getting into a very strange level of PC that I just don't even want to understand.
"Many could care less about his ranting on twitter."
This is a problem as I see it, and you're stating I can't state that because it may offend someone? I never said you appreciated his Twitter rants. I stated "a group of people."
However, if you support Trump and don't care about his Twitter rants then, I think you're complicit to an unfavorable political environment. I'm not stating you're a scourge on humanity or a bad person.I think you made a fair point. I was just making an attempt to point out we all look at the Trump presidency perhaps differently.
"However, if you support Trump and don't care about his Twitter rants then, I think you're complicit to an unfavorable political environment. I'm not stating you're a scourge on humanity or a bad person."
I don't feel I am complicit in any way to an unfavorable political environment. We had an election, he won. I don't find his job performance anything but magnificent. I voted to put in a person to do a job. I knew both candidates reputations were flawed. Very hard choice. However, I knew positively I did not want the status quo. I wanted a big change, and I m satisfied at this point. There will be another presidential election before we know it. I for one will once again vote for what I feel the country may need at that given time.
So, am I complicit to anything which I see as illegal activity or wrongdoing? I don't consider Trump's personality, values and off morals illegal. I find them different from my own, but I also don't have the right to judge him. I was aware of all his faults before I voted. I voted on his agenda. So far so good. I am not borrowing the dome and gloom that some have done, I hope he continues to do a good job, and then we all consider in the end, was he good or bad for the country.So, you separate his morals from the magnificent job you think he's doing. That's fair also. I just can't see the ends justifying the means here, even if I thought he was doing a great job. In my mind, he is deliberately sewing discord and attacking our democracy.
Now, I do see that the MSM takes some of his statements too far, but who can blame that at this point when he continually refers to them as the enemy of the people. I agree that we need a big change, but Trump is the opposite of what we need in my opinion.
And, I sincerely believe that he does not have anyone's best interest in mind other than his own. I think this is clear from his shady business past, where he stiffs contractors and sues anyone and everyone , to the statements he makes today.
I wouldn't hire a plumber to work on my car, and I wouldn't vote for a reality TV show/failed real estate tycoon for President. He is a despicable and incompetent human being in my opinion, but that doesn't mean I think every person who supports him is despicable. I don't give him much credit for the last 18 months because I don't think he's done much of anything. The economy was on an upswing when he took office, and we are still dealing with the main problem...low paying jobs.
Ultimately, the fact that he is President underscores my lack of faith in humanity. I hope the country will not be torn apart by his hate and his incompetence. We were on the path anyway, and he is making it more inevitable.
I do think he is probably doing many illegal things--as have other Presidents--though he takes it to another level, and may even be guilty of treason. Since you don't see it that way, then you wouldn't be complicit with illegal behavior, you just don't think it's happening. I think the guy is a criminal who makes money on the back of hard workers, files bankruptcy and then finds the only people left that will lend him money (Russians). That's just the way I see it."So, you separate his morals from the magnificent job you think he's doing. That's fair also. I just can't see the ends justifying the means here, even if I thought he was doing a great job. In my mind, he is deliberately sewing discord and attacking our democracy"
I don't feel he is sewing discord. Just my opinion
".Now, I do see that the MSM takes some of his statements too far, but who can blame that at this point when he continually refers to them as the enemy of the people. I agree that we need a big change, but Trump is the opposite of what we need in my opinion."
I respect your right to your opinion.
"And, I sincerely believe that he does not have anyone's best interest in mind other than his own. I think this is clear from his shady business past, where he stiffs contractors and sues anyone and everyone, to the statements he makes today. "
I do not agree. I would think he had a very nice life and did not need this kind of crazy. Not sure how realistically he would benefit from his presidency other than boosting his ego.
"I don't give him much credit for the last 18 months because I don't think he's done much of anything. The economy was on an upswing when he took office, and we are still dealing with the main problem...low paying jobs."
Again this is your opinion, can't comment. It is clear we feel differently about Trump's accomplishments. This is most likely because his accomplishments may not have affected your life in one way or the other. .My life has been affected positively. So it only human nature we would feel differently about his job performance.
"Ultimately, the fact that he is President underscores my lack of faith in humanity. I hope the country will not be torn apart by his hate and his incompetence. We were on the path anyway, and he is making it more inevitable."
Thi is sad to me. But it is clear you are being truthful. I too hope the country is not torn apart by hate, I have not witnessed incompetence as of yet. I agree we were already headed down a path of separation.
"I do think he is probably doing many illegal things--as have other Presidents--though he takes it to another level, and may even be guilty of treason. Since you don't see it that way, then you wouldn't be complicity of illegal behavior, you just don't think it's happening. I think the guy is a criminal who makes money on the back of hard workers, files bankruptcy and then finds the only people left that will lend him money (Russians). That's just the way I see it."
I think if he is doing anything illegal he has enough people investigating every aspect of his life and should be able to prove any wrongdoing. I personally don't think he has committed treason.
I have not been shown any facts of Trump breaking the law. So, I just don't know if anything illegal happened? I think it foolish to condemn anyone without some form of proof. I am waiting like everyone else for the reports from the many investigations. h claims to have never borrowed money from Russia. So far we have no proof he did. I would think Mueller would follow the money, and he certainly has had all of Trump's financial records. His taxes seem to be in order or he would have been charged by the IRS over the years if he committed any tax crimes.
I think there are two entirely different issues here, and two very different results in these actions.
On the one hand we have Trump and his 'Fake News' mantra that has gone on for a couple years.
Tell me, what news agency has he shut down?
What newspaper has been silenced?
On the other hand, we have a collective effort by all the current mainstream platform providers to silence opinions and topics deemed unfit (by who exactly we can leave open for the moment).
A few months back it was certain YouTube channels, white nationalist, white supremacist, groups.
A few days back it was people that could be classified as 'alt-right' or 'conspiracy theorist' types.
And this is how it works, it creeps along slowly, a few at a time, until all are censored.
“Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or “inconvenient” as determined by government authorities” — Wikipedia
The argument is that it isn't the government doing this, but private companies. That is interesting, so these companies are forced to send their CEOs to D.C. and sit in front of Congress and are chastised for their allowing free speech and 'Russian interference', and who knows what types of pressure and 'direction' is coming from the government that is not public, and that we don't know about.
In fact, Google (alphabet) hired the SPLC to do its moderating for them (including its YouTube content) a couple years back, and we find out a couple weeks ago that the SPLC and FBi have been in 'collusion' with one another:
Jul 31, 2018 - When pressed on its relationship with the SPLC, the FBI said, "For many years, the FBI has engaged with various organizations, both formally …
FBI, Southern Poverty Law Center partnership alarms conservatives ..
So what we have, is censorship not directly in the name of the government, but through controlled and directed non-profit agencies that do the work of the FBI.
Interesting that the same agency/people that cleared the Clintons of all crimes in various investigations, and presented the 'dossier' against Trump for the fisa warrants, and currently spearheads the 'Russian collusion' investigation, indirectly control the 'censorship' agencies that the 'private' companies are using to 'clean up' the internet.Ken I believe that the anarchist left won't be happy until they have "plugged in" 1984 to the entire news media , The democratic party platform and the errant mission half of the Obama DOJ , FBI , there has to be some kind of internal struggle with them and the right which we're not hearing word one on ? Fox news and the right fringe media cannot be the only one's playin chess here ?
By the looks of the ideological news media slant , the leftists are winning .Fox news is no longer Fox news, it is under new leadership as well, I expect that sometime before the 2020 election Hannity and the few that are left like him will be gone.
And then the only places that one will hear or see 'alternative' news is from the evil Russians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzYCvK5N-Os
"Tell me, what news agency has he shut down?
What newspaper has been silenced?"
Well, Trump has banned certain press members from briefings and the only reason he hasn't done more is because people, and a few other members of government, don't fall in line with all his wishes.
There's certainly a great deal of hate being spread by Trump that is going to boil over if something not done about it.
Don't forget Trump did put a gag order on EPA and USDA workers. Those he has the authority to ban, he bans. Thankfully, he's likely to step on his own toes enough before he gets a chance to ban more.
Trump's own words:
"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way … Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people."
What if Obama had said this?
Don, who started this fight? Did Trump or his detractors? Whether you like him or not, it is an important distinction. If someone is attacked first, he has the right to defend himself. No?
That person was stopped by civilians in the Giffords shooting.
I have no problem with training being mandatory, range time being mandatory, background checks and licensing being mandatory. The arguments against these 'common sense' laws that the NRA takes is why I no longer support the NRA, that and their efforts to continuously allow the mentally unstable and terrorist affiliated to have access to guns.
I firmly support not allowing people who are not trained, not licensed access to guns. Those unwilling to take those steps don't deserve the right to have easy access to deadly weapons.
But I also know that the terrorists and mentally unstable would find other ways to achieve their goals however, we see this with terrorists using trucks to mow down dozens of innocent civilians and when Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh.
Those numbers for Arizona are about the same number as Illinois in 2016, so making guns harder to own, or illegal to own, doesn't impact those stats much.
With 400 million guns in the country, it might not be that easy to enforce no matter what the laws are.
Arizona does not suffer excessive gun violence despite almost no laws and no enforcements.
The bulk of irrational mass murders are committed by the mentally unstable, or the extremist indoctrinated terrorist types.
What is scary, is the overwhelming effort to counter this reality by our media. The only reason I can fathom they are going through such efforts to blame the guns, not those who committed the crimes that had significant and documented mental health issues (or terrorist ties), is that the ultimate goal is to make guns illegal (except for those that can afford to have an armed security force around them at all times).
"Repeat after me: Mass shooters are not disproportionately mentally ill."
This is the opening line of a meme that's been circulating in the aftermath of the shooting in Parkland, Fla.
But this and other efforts to downplay the role of mental illness in mass shootings are simply misleading. There is a clear relationship between mental illness and mass public shootings.
When we focus more narrowly on mass public shootings, an extreme and, fortunately, rare form of violence, we see an extremely high rate of mental illness.
Mother Jones found a 61% rate of mental health problems among perpetrators of mass shootings when the magazine examined 62 cases in 2012.
Include what has occurred since 2012, such as those that have occurred in TX, FL, NV, NC, CT and the percentage jumps to 73%.
That's not including those known extremist/terrorist types. So, what we have are a lot of mass murders being committed by people who already had 'red flags' and should never have been allowed to legally purchase or own a gun, or have access to them.
The New York Times cited research showing that, in fact, mass murderers are nearly 20 times more likely to have a "severe" mental illness than the general population.
With a primary distinction, most media is biased to the good side, they advocate for what is righteous and beneficial to the majority of Americans while fox channel attracts the haters, white nationalist, KKKers and nazi sympathizers, you know, the losers my ancestors fought and defeated in WW2, just go take a look at Laura Inraham's latest hateful racist rant:
She was lucky last time a few months ago when sponsors dumped her like a rotten potato, I don't think sponsors will take the financial risk of staying with her this time:I'm watching it closely! She didn't use a dog whistle. She used a bullhorn. "There was LESS LEGAL immigration!"
To all my friends who hate CNN: Let me remind you, I started this forum with this introduction:
"At this moment if you are watching CNN, they are showing over 10,000 people marching and protesting about Trump. If you watch Fox New, they are talking about all the great accomplishments Trump has done while being in the UK. And in the lower right corner of the screen, barely visible in a very small frame is the feed of the protest, which they don't even acknowledge as being there. They are two separate realities."
For those of you that think CNN is one sided, this tells me you have never watched CNN and/or have been brainwashed about what CNN is or isn't.
CNN panels always have guest on, like Jeffery Lord, Kellyanne Conway, Jim Cortez and other right wingers who present the other side. Then there is Chris Cuomo whose show is based on point-counter point. He always has guests who debate each side. That is the premise of his show.
I have a remote control that by pushing the Previous button, I can switch form Fox to CNN in one push of the button. It is interesting to see how different their content and format are from almost the same moment in time.
Trump told Lesly Stahl's of 60 minutes why he calls MSM fake news. It's because if he is criticized by the MSM, no one will believe them. The link is at the bottom of these comments.
He poisons the well ahead of time with name calling of his opponents and saying that when he is going into competing that they should be fair to him. Because if he loses, it was because they did not play fair.
Everything his says, does or is going to do is bigger, better, more beautiful, more winning, and every other exaggerated adjective you can think of.
Why should MSM journalist support him when he calls them the enemy of the people and fake news?
I give you all of this because I hope you can see Trump for what he really is, a child who never learned that lying, name calling, and exaggeration are bad when you are president and it will catch up with him in time.
Here is the link to the Lesly Stahl interview.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/lesley-st … ump-press/ via @CBSNLive"The Child" in the mix is you Peoplepower and all of those who believe our media "fair and balanced ", interestingly as Fox calls itself that very term and they are . When an entire ideology declares itself the" Resistance "or "Obstructionists" of our president your very terms remind me of the Antifa movement , immature , youthful idealists , once a definition that all people understood of both party's , now however you AND your party have adopted the extremes of your fringe movements and good luck where that IS taking you!
Trump won an election fair and square, at which time your entire party nationwide lost over one thousand political office seats , in fact the predictions this fall are of your losing even more seats . These 2016 developments should actually scare your party leaders , IF you actually possessed such a thing , these 2016 developments should have forced a new party platform - to date it hasn't ! These 2016 developments should have forced your people towards new DNC leadership , They haven't .
What are democrats doing in 2018 ? They are still resisting a 2016 election outcome . Brilliant Peoplepower , Keep up that awesome party work .
Keep focusing on yesterday , wasting today and denying your selves tomorrow and see how that works out for democrats ?
In the mean time , your putting forth the same tired Bernie Sanders socialism message with a new Cortez face on it WHILE WE ALL WATCH as the much touted example of a new Venezuela mentality crumbles around you . Keep up the great cause comrades .ahorseback: Meanwhile, Trump is the obstructionist of justice. I ask you once again if he hasn't nothing to hide, why does he refuse to be questioned by Mueller? Where are his tax returns?
He and Guiliani play this cat and mouse game, now you see me now you don't. Guiliani says that Trump will only be interviewed, if they play nice with him, so that he can't possible perjury himself. Just like I said, he is child wearing grown up clothes.
I don't lie, exaggerate, and call people names, like Trump does. As far as you guys winning everything, it's not over until the fat lady sings. Don't call me comrade, get out of the sixties.
You are miss-construing my comments. I'm not concerned about my party. You don't get it. I don't like Trump, plain and simple. I think he is the biggest pr*ck in the world. Do you understand now? Oh and one more thing, I could care less about Hillary losing. You are the ones who keep bringing it up.Its a free country. You can like or dislike anyone elected. What is happening now is over the top hatred for this President. Do you deny it?
That is why term TDS is so accurate. It speaks of a group of people in the media, and hollywood and the Washington insiders of both party, who hate this guy so much that they are willing to destroy their own credibility in going after Trump unfairly. I think that is the difference this time around. Even in the days of Reagan, there was not this much over the top hatred...Look at the hate-filled statement our so called president puts out almost every day. He sets the example, his supporters follow, and then they cry foul when others hate back. This is so clear that it's almost unreal that so many claim to not see it. It makes sense though, I've had zero faith in humanity on a sociological level since I was a teenager.
I know teenagers now that see things much more clearly than many 65 -year-olds. Sad things brewing in America these days.Hard Sun, I have a question, and please do not take my request as any form of negative gesture. The subject of this thread is division, and clearly, it has taken many turns, none of them getting to the heart of the very a difficult problem. The first sentence in your comment made me sit up, and realize I needed to ask you a question.
"Look at the hate-filled statement our so called president puts out almost every day."
Hopefully, you will answer my question, and I don't get inundated with responses that deflect from the subject.
Could you provide me with just one statement that president Trump made in the last week or so that leaves you believing our president puts out "hate-filled statements almost every day? Please do not rehash some of his famous rude statements he made while campaigning. Because he made some very rude statements while campaigning. I m trying to get to the reason you have come to feel Trump makes a hateful statement almost daily.
My motive is honest and simple, I hope to learn from your answer.
Thank you for considering my question.Sharlee: I will take a crack at it. This is from USA Today, five days ago: This is what Trump said:
Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon,” Trump tweeted Friday night. “He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!”
First of all, it’s LeBron, not “Lebron.” Second, didn’t Trump call Bill Maher “the dumbest man on television” on Jan. 14, 2013? Are we to believe Maher got smarter in the interim or Lemon dumber?
Third, shouldn’t the president of the United States have higher priorities than immediate payback for perceived slights?
“A sign of an insecure human being is one who attacks others to make themselves feel better,” read a tweet from former Louisville star Donovan Mitchell's account on Saturday. “(I’m) just sad that young kids have to see stupid tweets like these and grow up thinking it’s okay ... forget everything else Donald your (sic) setting a bad example for kids.”
Moreover, in responding to recurring jabs from James with a gratuitous, unsubstantiated shot at his brainpower, Trump has picked an unusually unpromising fight.
James has spent his entire adult life as a celebrity and without the slightest scent of scandal or impropriety. He has stayed married to his high school sweetheart while Trump is on his third marriage and boasted about grabbing women by the genitals.
Like Trump, James has earned a billion dollars, but without six corporate bankruptcies.
In donating $50 million for the Akron “I Promise” school that opened Monday, James is providing an on-site food bank for students and job placement assistance for their parents. Each student is issued a bicycle and every graduate, beginning in 2021, is guaranteed free tuition at the University of Akron."Hopefully, you will answer my question, and I don't get inundated with responses that deflect from the subject. " --That's not me.
All I have to do is open his Twitter feed to see un-presidential hate-filled statements. Here's a sample that took about three minutes. Hate-filled statements are meant to disparage others and divide Americans. He excels at this. It is his M.O. He loves to attack the media so they will attack him. He attacks any American and American institution that he disagrees with on anything. It's dirty and low politics at its worst.
"Democrats, please do not distance yourselves from Nancy Pelosi. She is a wonderful person whose ideas & policies may be bad, but who should definitely be given a 4th chance. She is trying very hard & has every right to take down the Democrat Party if she has veered too far left!"
Deliberately causing division:
"The NFL players are at it again - taking a knee when they should be standing proudly for the National Anthem. Numerous players, from different teams, wanted to show their “outrage” at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love......"
Name calling..only fools disagree with Trump?
"Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!"
"Tariffs have had a tremendous positive impact on our Steel Industry. Plants are opening all over the U.S., Steelworkers are working again, and big dollars are flowing into our Treasury. Other countries use Tariffs against, but when we use them, foolish people scream!"
"Tariffs will make our country much richer than it is today. Only fools would disagree. We are using them to negotiate fair trade deals and, if countries are still unwilling to negotiate, they will pay us vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs. We win either way......"
"This is an illegally brought Rigged Witch Hunt run by people who are totally corrupt and/or conflicted. It was started and paid for by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats. Phony Dossier, FISA disgrace and so many lying and dishonest people already fired. 17 Angry Dems? Stay tuned!"
Attacking the media:
"The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!"
Hate-filled fear mongering:
"Democrats want Open Borders and they want to abolish ICE, the brave men and women that are protecting our Country from some of the most vicious and dangerous people on earth! Sorry, we can’t let that happen! Also, change the rules in the Senate and approve STRONG Border Security!"
Attacking the media:
"Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt - but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!"
"Why aren’t Mueller and the 17 Angry Democrats looking at the meetings concerning the Fake Dossier and all of the lying that went on in the FBI and DOJ? This is the most one sided Witch Hunt in the history of our country. Fortunately, the facts are all coming out, and fast!"
Most of this sounds like the rantings of a pissed off third-grader. I mean, he makes up childish nicknames for anyone who has an issue with something he says or does. But, others are full of hate for calling this type of behavior out? This is not how what America, or any nation, needs. His rallies are even worse. Maybe I can go into that tomorrow.
I have a few questions.
Do you think Trump is dividing Americans or bringing us together? If he is dividing us, is this his fault, or someone else's? After all, he's the President. Doesn't it all start with him?
I think the difference is how the media and Hollywood have attacked this President and distort his every action. Compared to how they supported Obama and excused his every action (if bad) or hyped them (if good).
What is equally concerning is the outside forces that are actually paying people to show up at rallies (riots), which then gives the biased media something to point at and report about, giving a far more distorted view of just where our country stands regarding these issues.
Fortunately most of America votes their wallets first and foremost, and if the economy remains strong that makes Trump undefeatable. Not that the Democrats have presented any type of alternative that could muster up support enough to defeat him... hence they pin their hopes on controlling Congress and Impeaching him."What is equally concerning is the outside forces that are actually paying people to show up at rallies (riots), which then gives the biased media something to point at and report about, giving a far more distorted view of just where our country stands regarding these issues."
I just want to point out that this has been going on for a long time. As a team leader for a lobbying firm, I know we would call people urging them to go to rallies, give them rides to events, reimburse them for gas, etc. This was mainly for right-wing causes. We did this most for anti-Obamacare rallies and gun control, Tea Party matters. We also took them to town halls to speak up for pharmaceuticals, medical technologies etc. Now, I worked for a lobbying firm that mainly did right-wing causes and when we facilitated rally attendance it was never to make a cause look dumb or outrageous. The participants did that themselves, and the big lobbying guys in DC laughed at them all the way to the bank.
Jack: TDS is a made up name with no scientific bearing. You know it and I know it. I didn't vote for Trump because I didn't like him then and I don't like him now. He has done nothing to give me any reason to like him.
I can go into all the reasons I don't like him, but I think that would be an exercise in futility for both of us. Let's just suffice it to say, I don't like his personality as a person or as president.
It has nothing to do with TDS. That connotes a buildup of frustration. I'm not frustrated, I just don't like the way he conducts himself as a president. I don't like his past, I don't like his present, and more than likely, I won't like his future.
I'm not willing to overlook all his BS in the hopes of what he can do for me, like so many of his supporters are doing. So far I'm not impressed with anything that he has done with this country. It is all smoke and mirrors.
Have a good day Jack.TDS is simply a Fox Talking Point which cons use to justify why the left is so unworthy. Sez Hannity!
But You guys had TDS even before he was elected ...........Ya , you all got it alright .
Horse, this is the last time I'm asking you not to address me. I have absolutely no interest in what a nameless faceless individual has to say about anything on any subject. If you continue to do so, it will be considered harassment.
If you can't take the heat maybe you shouldn't reside in political forums Randy . Just saying , it's all politics .
I also find it kinda weak that horserear can't use a real name or pic. Is the horse not proud of its views?
I find it interesting that those who dish the most whininess out -----Can take the least in ! Interesting and of course childish !
I have absolutely no respect for the views of those too frightened to be responsible for their opinions, Jake. And why should I? They could be the worst human beings possible, so why would I care what they think?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
You people hate Fox , Breitbart and similar news because you can't handle honesty , truth and real solutions to ongoing social , government and cultural problems , you'd rather side with a agenda that supports your ideology 100 % much like the Nazi's did , much like the Leninists , the Maoists , It's really a wonder at all that socialism hasn't slammed into a democratic America much, much sooner than it has with your party's brilliance brainwashing our youth and children .
Racism has NOTHING to do with legal immigration , but when a ethnicity of people are subjecting our borders to constant migratory escapism , you've managed once again to scream RACISM because that's the only understanding you can attain from , for one , NEVER reading your own constitution . One has to wonder where and if liberals here ,who are for open borders, actually ever attained an education in the first place , certainly you can prove a diploma or two ? Read the Constitution ! Try it , it could actually enlighten you to the actual rule of law !.Right on ahorseback. You are so accurate in this description of the loons here. I am so sick of hearing their rants about white nationalism and alt right when those people aren’t on the right but the left- they hate Trump and have nothing in common with his beliefs or policies. Just listen to this
https://youtu.be/MHXL00wY3nY
Alt right has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with the leftTSAD: Here is Trump and the height of Hypocrisy about chain migration. Can you handle it?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics … index.htmlTSAD: I watched that link and that is the biggest bunch of BS, I have every watched. If you believe that presentation, then I have a bridge I can sell you in Brooklyn.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Ken Burgess , Gun Control in 25 years ? How about changes to First amendment ? How about changes to the fifth amendment rights ? No , there will be no affective infringement on the second amendment like there has been no infringement to date , most ruled unconstitutional , Other than state and localised failures disguised as lousy attempts to "control "out of control crime .
With all of the available criminal justice statistics , studies , and experiments in gun controls the single biggest lesson learned in them is the need and the absolute failure in constructive criminal control ! Gun free zones - already disproven . Assault weapons bans of Clinton's era -disproven and unconstitutional . Handgun bans -ineffective . All that's ever been proven is that criminals totally ignore all attempts at gun control.
I advise all of you to watch the complete police interrogation of Nicholas Cruz , the Parkland shooter on U -Tube . Lesson one for all of you -- There is no controlling {by law }the mentally disturbed criminal , There is no controlling { by law } the gun crime criminal ,
In the ATF FBI background checks there are already questions about a firearm purchasers mental health history , his legal history , his criminal and citizenship history , These questions have been there for years , Fact . Now , How have those worked out in controlling the acquisition of firearms by criminals , by the mentally disturbed , by the illegal immigrant ?
What is it about the mentality of an ideology mostly against gun owners and the second amendment that continually ignores the most obvious evidence before your very eyes , All the laws in the world have not affected the illegal acts that they are written to protect us from , yet , You all would write another page full of new legislation to accomplish "more "?
Ken , I know you're not against firearms , or they're owners but to cave politically to the social reengineers and their agenda , to cave to the hypocrisy of ineffective legislators , to cave to the will of the intellectually uninformed here , is wrong and it's totally ineffective in controlling any future violence. - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
I've noticed there is a blatant need among some liberals to offend like there's no tomorrow through their TDS and then when someone hands their refuse back to them on a stick ---they get all offended ? Suggestion , Go write a poem to self or something , You don't belong in political forums, children .
You belong in a stable with the livestock. You're crying now, and are always the first to start it.
I see you already have them. Keep em..you're gonna need em. This is just too much fun. At least I don't hide.
And your name is REALLY hard sun .
Keep on trying .It's on my page genius. This is just too easy.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Mental Illness OR Insanity , One uses a gun to commit a crime of passion from a mental weakness , the other think that they can stop an act of mental illness with more legislation ?
You pick . - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
By Now , The left has more than openly proven and admitted they want a highly controlled socialist / democracy , That is exactly what gun control is all about . That is merely a continuum of Obama's socially reengineered USA , That is why altering the very foundation of our constitutional law is all about .
More gun control is not going to happen anytime soon in the USA , Why ? Because we have a president that is front loading the supreme court with constitutionalist judges FOR constitutional protections . Much the same way that Obama loaded it for his agenda , by nominating alt-socialists.
Much like some of the people right here in these forums , the most dangerous ingredient to acts of gun violence or any violence is the fact that a growing percentage of Americans are living lives addicted to mind altering opioids and other ingredients .
Mass shootings , gun crimes and and accidental shooting are so far down the list of reasons for US deaths as to make it less important than WHY our society is self destructing in the first place . drug use , alcoholism , unhindered criminal behavior , mental illness ,increased gang crime , a plague of unhinged personal accountability ,
While the idiocy of intellectualism without common sense demands more legislation to control something so completely uncontrollable as mental illness ?--- America doesn't even have a comprehensive mental HEALTH program which means that having a mental illness program is EVEN further down that same path.
Note ; The Las Vegas shooter investigation just released this finding ; They can find NO motive for that shooting . Apparently mental illness isn't even on the radar for mass shootings , BUT good luck legislating mental health .
50 Million people in America have a mental illness , One out of five people and that is simply a guess by the best minds ? And America doesn't even have a comprehensive mental healthcare system ? Yet , you in America who want more gun controls , also want other more important entitlements like a free guaranteed minimum wage , free higher education , free day care , free drug prescriptions ?
But keep working on that gun control because "it's working "? - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
It is the ideology of leading softer on crime friendly legislations , The ACLU , The Southern Law School , Prisoners Rights Organization ,Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch , Anti-Defamation League , National bar Association , and about forty other liberal associations that have collectively softened and shortened the sentences of criminals who's recidivism is responsible for over seventy percent of gun crimes .
Recidivism ; Responsible for most gun crimes , Look no further than this one factor , most gun crimes are committed by repeat criminals . People who from teenager years are best friends of the courts , of activist judges and apathetic legal system offices .
Now , against all reason , the liberal majority news {Social } media is declaring more gun crimes "mass shootings " than ever before .
Why is any shooting involving more than two people is considered a "Mass Shooting " now ? A little media integrity would go along ways in solving any gun crimes at all but for mass school shootings for instance , our media , the systemic failure of the justice system , and public apathy , Nothing will ever get solved because you're all looking in the wrong place . Designing a solution bent on misinformation and phony outrage .
Keep up the great humanitarian work Liberals . Other than the natural drop in all major crimes , nothing you have proposed and acted upon so far has accomplished anything ! - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
And yet you people keep pushing more gun legislation and constitutional change all the while blaming Trump for calling the media the enemy ?
Hypocritical , best describes the left at that point !Hi there ahorseback. Would you still feel confident using this meme to support your point if you understood it is almost certainly bogus?
The quote has been around since 1967, and has been unconfirmed since then - no one has been able to provide a source of attribution
Plus, there is the fact that the Nazi government didn't enact new gun laws until 1938. And those were a liberalization of the 1928 Wiemar government gun laws.
Hmm... just saying, you know me and those Hitler comparisons. Almost never a good place to stand.
GAWell, if Hitler talk makes you uncomfortable , let's talk about London's increased violence of late or Sidney Australia's violent crime problems lately since the two are or were used for gun legislation comparisons . And as to Germany , some very "grey" controversial material about whether or not Hitler attempted to disarm or was successful in the partial disarmament of civilians and enemy[s]. is all you can call me out on .
Either way , Hitler attempted it .ahorseback: This is what Hitler really did with his "Hitler Youth Organization." He never took guns away from the kids. As a matter of fact they were given weapons and trained in paramilitary techniques. And when old enough, they were installed into the NAZI War Machine.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-hi … into-nazis
Hitler did a lot of things with his guns against unarmed people but I don't really need your history lesson peoplepower , my Father directly educated us about all of that . I do find it interesting that if offered , the left today is perfectly willing to rewrite history to defend their points , That's something Hitler did too.
"Hitler talk" doesn't make me uncomfortable ahorseback, it just affects my perception of the comment that includes it.
We don't need to change direction and bring in London or Australia, we can stick with the Hitler point of my response.
I haven't found much "gray" regarding Nazi Germany's gun control efforts. It is relatively clear that Hitler did disarm the Jews, but for the rest of the population, it appears gun control restrictions were actually relaxed a bit.
But that too is beside the point of my comment. You were "called out" only in the context of a question about your confidence and promotion of an almost certainly* bogus meme.
*I say almost certainly because 50 yrs. of trying haven't been able to confirm the attribution of the quote, and the quote date is historically very improbable.
If that doesn't bother you because you like the message, then that is another issue.
GA
Politifake.org? Are you serious? You see, there really is FAKE NEWS. It's called absolutely no sources, or even satire. Real news gets things wrong now and then, and may even be a little biased, especially on opinion pieces about Presidents that continually attack freedom of the press.
The Skeptical Liberarian
https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2 … sarmament/
"irst, no source for this quote (if people bother citing any) checks out. It is generally sourced to an address from Hitler to the Reichstag: Adolph Hitler, ‘Abschied vom Hessenland!’ [‘Farewell to Hessia!’], [‘Berlin Daily’ (loose English translation)], Apr. 15, 1935, page 3, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].
Bernard Harcout, political science chair at the University of Chicago, writes, “[This] infamous quote is probably a fraud and was likely never uttered. The citation reference is a jumbled and incomprehensible mess that has never been properly identified or authenticated, and no one has been able to produce a document corresponding to the quote. It has been the subject of much research, all of it fruitless, and has now entered the annals of urban legend.”"
OK...I see this has been pointed out already. I'm glad the forum didn't let that one slide.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Considering that Obama's plan and result acted upon was to raise the fuel standards starting in 2009 by about 5 % a year , Effectively Trump is eliminating Obama's increases !
Yet to the left Trump is polluting ? Go figure !ahorseback: I hate to tell you this, but raising fuel standards results in less pollution. Lowering fuel standards like Trump is doing increases pollution.
It also increases the profits of the oil companies because they don't have to do as much refinement and processing.
It also causes more depletion of the ozone layer which contributes to global warming, which contributes to more severe weather patterns, which causes, more floods, which causes people losing their houses and lives...Go figure !Okay ,Poeoplepower Gore ; It also costs more to the consumer , it causes companies like Volkswagen and many others to lie and "adjust " emissions metering , it has caused our energy prices steadily inch upwards , leads to carbon tax talk , makes liberals insane in Califonika who own the most cars and wildfires , And totally distracts college kids from their studies but hey ......................everybody needs a cause .
Geez, Peoplepower, this stuff is Conservation 101, who could fail to understand these basics?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
We can debate the Hitler view on taking guns all day long , it won't change the concept of disarming an armed populace for nefarious, and purposefully insane purposes will it . - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
The left in America and your media has promoted Putin , Russia and every conspiracy plan they have against the western world ten thousand times better than even Russia itself has . By false charges of collusion and keeping them alive in the western news media .
How ? Why ? Picture says it all .
Agree 100%.
The left in this country has done more damage to our government than Russia or China can ever do. That says it all.
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Peoplepower , Seeings how my name is brought up , I'll jump in here . A couple on the left see my posts as personal attacks , they are not however of a personal nature . For purposes of learning curve here , I learned long ago that getting banned for personal attacks ,or whatever the reasons, isn't a good way to go if I want to enjoy the ability to post in these forums.
I DO however have a deep disrespect for what I view as an ideology that is preordained to the destruction of traditional american beliefs. That is likely anti-constitutional , that is trying to alter the very fabric of not only our national make up , but of the conservative party as well. Still ,I do not and cannot hate the people of the left because I have many in my own family .
The ideology ? Yes.
EVEN THOUGH I believe this ideology has declared an ideological war on the American right , has severely and irrevocably altered the foundation of it's own party , has openly declared that conservatives are the enemy . and is using the extremely liberal friendly news media to deliver that strategy , I do not hate the people I debate with . As you say , we have developed a relationship of respect here , even taking into account that we may even be influenced by each others points. - ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
I HOPE TRUMP CONTINUES his war against the fake news media until one of two things happens , The News Media gets it's collective and totally abusive head out of it's a$$ and it very much needs to , OR Trump is indicted for even one of the hundreds of phony accusations against him by the New Party of Political Obstructionists.
NPPO's { they used to be called democrats }Horse, I too hope the fast and furious media bias ends. It's hard to know where one can find unbias reporting any more. CNN's ratings get worse each week. Just my opinion, but many journalists have lost their credibility.
It is clear, many in the media will not accept Trump due to what appears mostly to his personality traits, and his what they view a lack of values. Trump threatens the status quo in what many feel a president should be.
I hope you are following the ongoing dossier investigation. Congress is daily uncovering the real obstruction, and piling up facts. The latest Ohr emails are very condemning and will provide a big nail fo the coffin. I think much of this dossier evidence has come out of the Mueller investigation. The new Bruce Ohr emails were published last week in the Hill. CNN and MSNBC are not covering the story. Bruce was very careless with his emails... Also, we await the Inspector General Horowitz investigation on the once again Hillary Clinton emails. He runs a tight ship, no leaks, no funny business. It will be very interesting to hear what he comes up with.
I agree the media has accused Trump of many crimes. However, if one stops in their own tracks, take a minute to think logically, hey might realize so far there is no proof of any crime. Plus would not common sense tell one with all the investigations, and media digging, would not the smallest crime be up turned? They do continue to turn personality flaws as well as what they deem moral flaws. However, is this news or is it just building blocks of hate against the president?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
I wonder what all of the nay -sayers are going to do when Trump's re-elected by a landslide ?
Whine? Our country is divided as it has always been since the beginning when there were those who remained loyal to King George III. The enlightened and the unenlightened. Fortunately balloons filled with helium tend to rise. Enlightenment is like helium.
Hang tight, those of you who know the truth!
Interesting perspective;
http://www.ouramericanrevolution.org/in … iew/pp0022A people divided can be controlled, a people united cannot be.
If all Americans are united in something, the government is forced to grant it.
The job of the media is to ensure Americans are divided, or in favor of laws and policies that the Corporations want.
The current 'clean-up' of the internet, and the collaboration now between MSM news and Apple, YouTube, Facebook is to ensure the information Americans have available to them to base decisions on, is only that which the MSM presents.
It will not be effective, it will eventually make YouTube and Facebook as ineffective as CNN and MSNBC are today, people will move to new platforms like https://www.bitchute.com/ where freedom of speech is not being censored.
On an aside, for those of you who have invested into GOOG (YouTube) and FB (Facebook) you might want to pull your money now while its near all time highs, because the very thing that made them so popular which was the ability to speak freely, communicate to like-minded individuals, and watch anyone and anything they wanted, is now being restricted... this absolutely will drive people away by the millions to new platforms that do not censor and are not pushing the Doublethink Newspeak era we have entered into.The purpose of commercial television is to have sponsors pitch their products via commercials. They want the viewers to hang in long enough to watch the commercials. That's what soap operas and all sportscasts are about, especially the super bowl.
I believe today's newscasts are no different. They provide the news content and want you to hang in there until the next segment so sponsors can pitch their products. That's why everything is breaking news.
If all newscasters provided the same content, there would be no need to have more than one. The other outlets would not be able to have their sponsors pitch their products and the revenue from the sponsors to the owner of the outlets would be much less.
The only way one news source would work is the way it was done in the past. Where there was the evening news. It lasted one hour and it had a point/counter point format. The audience could then make up their minds as to what they thought was appropriate content.
But then somebody figured out how we could have 24 hour echo chambers with commercials in between the content. And with different content to meet politically different needs. That's why we have Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Alex Jones et al.
I remember the talent shows that lasted one hour and at the end of the hour, the winner was decided by the audience. Again somebody figured out how to make these into reality shows that last for complete seasons, the purpose of which is to sell commercial products so that the owners can make tons of money that can be doled out to all of those involved.
So it is not only about politics, but it is about following the money as well.
Ken, I don't know of any news entity that censors freedom of speech besides Trump. He tells people what to believe and not believe. This is what he said: "Stick with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. ... What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
Please tell me who or what is censoring freedom of speech.
Listed in chronological order, so one can see the progression that is taking place:
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/3316 … censorship
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/arts … m-ads.html
http://nlpc.org/2017/10/11/censorship-c … k-youtube/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/tech … nnels.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo … ring-dumb/
https://www.nssf.org/youtubes-new-polic … r-concern/
http://youtubecensorship.com/
http://www.futuredanger.com/news-blatantly-censored/Better get your news from Alex Jones or just directly from Trump then. Let's ban reporters from the White House and just listen to Sarah and Donny. There are so cool and truthful, it makes my heart throb.
Most people have the capacity to decipher fake news from biased news from opinion pieces, then you have most Trump supporters. They just believe what he says and attack the media.Ken almost all these have to do with YouTube changing their monetizing algorithm. Are your articles monetized on Hub Pages? I have been on HP for almost 7 years and I have lost count of the number of times Google has changed their algorithm. We used to be able to earn serious money, until they changed the algorithm more in their favor. But that is not not censorship, it is business.
Censorship is what Trump does when he calls the MSM fake news and the enemy of the people. He is telling his people and you to not watch it. Because it is evil. Let me remind you this is what he said at one of his rallies:
"Stick with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. ... What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
He is censoring people from listening to the news other what he tells them.
- Ed Fisherposted 6 years ago0
Fox has the highest ratings for a good reason , CNN 's on the other hand are competing with HSM , The Home Shopping Network, are we then to assume that the price of a new set of cheap dishes is as important to Americans as what we perceive as the one truth ?
Ed: No it just means there are more people who are misinformed by Fox, then by CNN.
I suppose so , at least in the minds of the CNN watchers who're apparently happy with a dying media source . But they haven't lost their entire viewing audience because they constantly strive towards truth , honesty and accuracy .
Think about that .
Okay Jack, it only took a few minutes listening to Rush before I found an inaccuracy. Rush said those on the left think of rural republicans as pig farmers riding around with a rifle rack in the rear window of their pickups. It's dumb statements like this--which many of his listeners believe--causing so much division between the people. But Rush knows this and continues to egg it on for Trump's sake.
Randy, my cousin, her husband and the blithering idiotic crowd they run with believe IQ drop the further you get away from a city. They will tell you the further you are in the country, the lower the IQ. So, they would never acknowledge you as a liberal. They find people who live in the country as cute like children. I don't think you would be impressed with her and her husband and their PhD's and all-knowing attitude. Yes, there are liberals who think this way. I live in a rural area, so they automatically think they are smarter.
Damn Mike, based on an NPR blurb I heard today I could write an article as a response. But, in short, I agree with you.
The blurb was about a book that argued against our mid-20th-century belief, (by many "intelligent" folks), that science, (in the age of Eugenics), had proven that Western civilizations, (read white Europeans), were biologically superior to the races and cultures of 3rd world nations.
I bet a lot of folks here can remember those times.
The author spoke of an experience in Northern Alaska with an Inuit group. He commented that his Ph.D. would not have kept him alive. There is a difference between being smart and intellectually intelligent.
I whole-heartedly agree. Intellectual arrogance only serves to remind me of The Hungar Games scenario.
GAKnowledge is often mistaken for intelligence. They are not the same, and virtually all people are knowledgeable about something - something that is often not valued by people with a different knowledge base.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe that they are smarter and more capable than they really are. Essentially, low ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence. The combination of poor self-awareness and low cognitive ability leads them to overestimate their own capabilities.
The term lends a scientific name and explanation to a problem that many people immediately recognize—that fools are blind to their own foolishness. As Charles Darwin wrote in his book The Descent of Man, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
There is no excuse for ignorance Mike, no matter the party one identifies with.
Rush did say that and it is true. The fly over states is what he was referring to. Did you get his point? He is not saying they are dumb hicks...
He said the left...meaning liberal progressives at the NYT...thinks that.
They are called the deplorable by Hillary...
So in 1 minute, you just miss understood what he said and put your own spin on it.
Did you hear the rest of his monologue? And the show. You might just learn something. What did Rush say about the NYT article? Are you going to defend the NYT as the truth in media?Rush Limbaugh is probably not a good source to attempt to strike up a conversation with someone on the left. Rush is too obnoxious for me to listen to and I usually stand to the right, politically.
Rush is entertainment and political astuteness rolled into one.
He has been right more times than wrong.
He also gives a different perspective than just the two parties of DC.
He is not for everyone but he does have 13 million regular listeners and many are not just conservatives.For a more detailed explanation of Rush Limbaugh’s popularity, check out my hub “A Tribute to Rush Limbaugh”.
I cannot post the link here since it violates Hubpages TOU.
You can search on google and comes up number one on page rank...
How great is that.
Here is the story on the NYT article on the 1619 project...
https://www.theamericanconservative.com … iberalism/The difference in you and I is you take everything he says as gospel, Jack. You try to explain away all of his ludicrous claims no matter what he says. You are his ideal patsy listener.
And yes, I heard most of his BS you fall for. Did you read the link about him provided by promisem? Bet you didn't!You didn’t listen to Rush for the 3 hours did you?
You missed out on some key points he made.
"The Dunning-Kruger effect" I refer to this as the "Liberal Syndrome" as it describes every liberal I've ever encountered. Maybe it should be renamed.
"every liberal I've ever encountered."
Are you sure about this statement? Do you stand by it, ot would you like to amend it?"Are you sure about this statement? Do you stand by it, ot would you like to amend it?"
Hey, that's one of my lines. You have been paying attention.
GA ;-)Gus is a trip, Sandy. I say this with affection for the old dude--not that I'm younger than he--but hopefully more obstinate .
I think your "hope" is realized Randy. I think you are more obstinate too. ;-)
GAHow old are you guys, anyway? I was under the impression you were about my age and I am definitely not old. Sixty is barely grown up! lol
My friend doesn't admit to being sixty. You ask him his age and he'll tell you he's "Double thirty."
I remember adopting software numbering when I turn sixty. First I was 59.1, then 59.2, but after 59.3 I just said the hell with it - I'm old.
GA
I think I remember being sixty. But I can't be sure, you know what they say about memory and aging . . . it's the second thing to go.
GA
I live in a "college town." I think the majority of the Ph.Ds around here understand the need to respect the knowledge of say, their mechanic, or their plumber. They also understand that just because they are an expert in say, meteorology, it doesn't make them an expert in carpentry.
There are some who think they know everything because they are tremendously knowledgeable in Biology. Intelligent people that aren't very wise. I call them assholes. We also have these assholes who are mechanics but think they know more about biology, meteorology, etc., than do the experts. Either way, Dunning-Krueger can apply.
Assholes exist in all professions and political persuasions.Yes, there are just as many mill workers who think they know everything as there are college professors. I grew up in a blue collar family in a blue collar town and we had no shortage of "experts" on everything from what's wrong with kids these days to how to win the Vietnam War:
The commentary on CCN was so bias even decades ago that we called it the Clinton News Network, who gave people like James Carville airtime to make his disgusting remark regarding waving a $100 bill in a trailer park regarding the sexual allegations against Clinton. News reporting should be reporting the facts to the public in a balanced manner, not for the spreading of propaganda attempting to mold public opinion. One reason this country is divided is that there are those struggling to maintain and strengthen sovereignty, and adversarial organized forces trying to usher in their NWO.
Related Discussions
- 42
Media keeps losing to Pres Trump but won't retreat from Fake News?
by ahorseback 7 years ago
Fake is fake and everybody knows the difference except the mainstream media .Any takers ? Even liberals must recognize the futility of the news media maintaining the plague of falsehoods.
- 34
So Now, the Press is Enemy of the American People According to Trump?
by Credence2 7 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
- 56
President Trump Calls for an Investigation of the "Fake" News Media
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
Is this something Congress should do?And what exactly is fake news? While President Trump may complain about "fake" news, he continues to make demonstrably false statements at a rate that far exceeds anything in the "fake" news. In fact, those false statement are all tallied...
- 29
"Enemy of the people" in light of recent events
by PrettyPanther 6 years ago
David Lapan@DaveLapanDC"Over 30+ years as a U.S. Marine, I defended our country against its true enemies. In 20+ years as a USMC, Pentagon and DHS spokesman, I dealt w/ the news media nearly every day. I know quite a bit about the press and know this -- they are NOT the enemy of the American...
- 24
CNN Drops 26% In Prime Time As Fox News Dominates April Cable Ratings
by Kenna McHugh 5 years ago
I had to post this here because it is so cool. CNN reputation is poor for accurate reporting, so finally, the public is catching on. https://www.forbes.com/"...the network saw its prime time lineup drop 26% in April compared to the same month one year ago. CNN's total audience in prime time...
- 180
Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
How can Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when his is constantly working at dividing his own country? Ever since he was elected president, he has constantly called the Main Stream Media the "Fake News." No modern American president has publicly spoken this way about the press....