Trump pardons fellow racist

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Salty's statement reflects the thoughts of millions. Doubt many even read their links. (rather obvious in this example) CNN brought this upon themselves and has no one else to blame. Their lies and disingenuous reporting is dangerous in that it divides a populous and provides fodder for their parrots who perpetuate a false narrative.  Look no further than this forum, hell, this thread!

So while you call it unintelligent, millions call it well earned. 

You've become one of the true (want to) believers.    Fake news!  Unfair!    

 

CNN is just one of many players in the media.  Trump doesn't like the way they treat him so he's declared war on them.  It's pathetic.  CNN doesn't control the message, Trump does.

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You've become one of the true (want to) believers.    Fake news!  Unfair!    

 

 

I know lies when I see them homes and absolutely refuse to don those blinders. Sorry. 

[homersapien 11,393]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I know lies when I see them homes and absolutely refuse to don those blinders. Sorry. 

Tell me what "lies" that CNN promoted that have made a real difference in how the Trump presidency is seen by the American public.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Tell me what "lies" that CNN promoted that have made a real difference in how the Trump presidency is seen by the American public.

 This is precisely the disingenuous speak I abhor. Quite certain you know at least some of the lies, yet you want to play this game. Not interested. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 This is precisely the disingenuous speak I abhor. Quite certain you know at least some of the lies, yet you want to play this game. Not interested. 

Actually, I think his question is a fair one.  Accusations are being made against CNN.  Its incumbent upon those making the accusations to provide proper reasoning for why they are making the claim. 

I haven't seen anything demonstrably false in CNNs reporting.  Their commentators tend to go off the rails (no different from any other network), but that's not the news agency.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

34 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Actually, I think his question is a fair one.  Accusations are being made against CNN.  Its incumbent upon those making the accusations to provide proper reasoning for why they are making the claim. 

I haven't seen anything demonstrably false in CNNs reporting.  Their commentators tend to go off the rails (no different from any other network), but that's not the news agency.

Fine. Let's address some of the current noise.

CNN continues to promote Trump's failure to denounce white supremacist. Problem is we have on tape him doing so repeatedly recently and as far back as 2003. 

CNN claims all who voted for Trump are white supremacist. So I don't know a lot of Trump voters, but I work with a few African American's who voted Trump. Sorry, but they are not guilty as charged. 

I could go on, but it is entirely unnecessary. One would literally have to have their heads in the sand not to understand what is happening here. CNN is at war with Trump and it is impacting their ability to be objective. Lies are simply not necessary. Seems to me just reporting facts on Trump would suffice. 

And by no means am I saying they are alone. Other media sources are just as disingenuous, but this thread mentioned CNN specifically. 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I've missed this:

"CNN claims all who voted for Trump are white supremacist."

Who? When?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

35 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Fine. Let's address some of the current noise.

CNN continues to promote Trump's failure to denounce white supremacist. Problem is we have on tape him doing so repeatedly recently and as far back as 2003. 

CNN claims all who voted for Trump are white supremacist. So I don't know a lot of Trump voters, but I work with a few African American's who voted Trump. Sorry, but they are not guilty as charged. 

I could go on, but it is entirely unnecessary. One would literally have to have their heads in the sand not to understand what is happening here. CNN is at war with Trump and it is impacting their ability to be objective. Lies are simply not necessary. Seems to me just reporting facts on Trump would suffice. 

And by no means am I saying they are alone. Other media sources are just as disingenuous, but this thread mentioned CNN specifically. 

Admittedly, I tend to read the news more than watch on television.  However, are you suggesting that CNN as an institution is doing these things or are certain commentators saying them?  Because when it's straight news, particularly on their website, they're very balanced.  If it's commentators, then that's the public and our President not being able to distinguish opinion from news.  Just like CNN has liberal opinion makers, they also have conservative ones.  Remember, during the campaign they employed several people to specifically give a POV from the Trump side and had them on every key panel (Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski).

That being said, there isn't a single major cable news outlet that is objective.  If you want that, go to the nightly news on CBS, ABC, or NBC or better yet, watch PBS.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

22 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here you go Salty, something new already.  And it's not from CNN either

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump’s-business-sought-deal-on-a-trump-tower-in-moscow-while-he-ran-for-president/ar-AAqOjEs?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

CNN to MSN. Like going from the toilet straight to the sewer Brad.  

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

49 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

. Seems to me just reporting facts on Trump would suffice. 

Bingo 78.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

29 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

CNN to MSN. Like going from the toilet straight to the sewer Brad.  

This response only proves to me that you have no interest in debating the topic at hand.

Do you know what MSN stands for?  Microsoft Network.  All they do is aggregate stories from different sources around the internet.  The article was written by WaPo.  It's in the top left of the article, next to Trump's picture.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

18 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This response only proves to me that you have no interest in debating the topic at hand.

Do you know what MSN stands for?  Microsoft Network.  All they do is aggregate stories from different sources around the internet.  The article was written by WaPo.  It's in the top left of the article, next to Trump's picture.

I have no desire in debating Russia brother Brad. It is worn out. If Trump is guilty of a crime oust him. I realize he can be a douche bag. I also realize that Trump opposition are a pile of DBs. The OP is about "fellow racist". Russia only mentioned because I posted dried up , "racist" is the new anti Trump word. 

Answer to your question about MSN is I had forgotten what it stands for or what they do. Point? perhaps I am wrong but always associated them left leaning and doubt that I'm wrong. WaPoo is deep in the sewer.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

34 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Admittedly, I tend to read the news more than watch on television.  However, are you suggesting that CNN as an institution is doing these things or are certain commentators saying them?  Because when it's straight news, particularly on their website, they're very balanced.  If it's commentators, then that's the public and our President not being able to distinguish opinion from news.  Just like CNN has liberal opinion makers, they also have conservative ones.  Remember, during the campaign they employed several people to specifically give a POV from the Trump side and had them on every key panel (Jeffrey Lord and Corey Lewandowski).

That being said, there isn't a single major cable news outlet that is objective.  If you want that, go to the nightly news on CBS, ABC, or NBC or better yet, watch PBS.

I think you nailed the opinion part. However, doesn't the network have the ability to reign in the opinion if it becomes blatant lies? Also, the two examples I provided were in print, so there is that for what its worth. 

You are also correct regarding conservative commentary. I'll give them a lowercase e for effort as they could certainly do better. 

Look, I grew up with the CNN. In my opinion, there are merely a shell of what they once were. Disappointing. 

BTW, this is all simply my opinion. Doesn't necessarily make it factual. 

 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

9 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no desire in debating Russia brother Brad. It is worn out. If Trump is guilty of a crime oust him. I realize he can be a douche bag. I also realize that Trump opposition are a pile of DBs. The OP is about "fellow racist". Russia only mentioned because I posted dried up , "racist" is the new anti Trump word. 

Answer to your question about MSN is I had forgotten what it stands for or what they do. Point? perhaps I am wrong but always associated them left leaning and doubt that I'm wrong. WaPoo is deep in the sewer.

You're awful sensitive about any Trump criticism. Can't talk about his Russian ties/lies, can't talk about his racist ties/lies. Salty needs a safe space.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

 This is precisely the disingenuous speak I abhor. Quite certain you know at least some of the lies, yet you want to play this game. Not interested. 

Actually no, I don't.  Please tell me.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I have no desire in debating Russia brother Brad. It is worn out. If Trump is guilty of a crime oust him. I realize he can be a douche bag. I also realize that Trump opposition are a pile of DBs. The OP is about "fellow racist". Russia only mentioned because I posted dried up , "racist" is the new anti Trump word. 

Answer to your question about MSN is I had forgotten what it stands for or what they do. Point? perhaps I am wrong but always associated them left leaning and doubt that I'm wrong. WaPoo is deep in the sewer.

1) I'm cool with not talking about Russia in this thread.  As you mentioned, you brought it up, not me.

2) I would be considered "Trump opposition", as would many other well meaning tax payers who see major problems with our current POTUS.  Guess that makes us all DBs.  But this line of thinking is also a problem.  Just because one opposes the President doesn't make said person a "DB", as you so eloquently put it.  I know folks who vehemently disagreed with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  They're still good people.

3) Yes, you're wrong about MSN.  In fact, you couldn't be more out in left field.

4) WaPo has been extremely accurate in their reporting during the Trump administration.  It's often not glowing of the President, but it's also not false.  If you want the sewer, go read HuffPo or Breitbart.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think you nailed the opinion part. However, doesn't the network have the ability to reign in the opinion if it becomes blatant lies? Also, the two examples I provided were in print, so there is that for what its worth. 

You are also correct regarding conservative commentary. I'll give them a lowercase e for effort as they could certainly do better. 

Look, I grew up with the CNN. In my opinion, there are merely a shell of what they once were. Disappointing. 

BTW, this is all simply my opinion. Doesn't necessarily make it factual. 

 

The network does have that ability, but how often do any of them do it?  Maddow, Lewandowski, Hannity...they're all ideologues who will spin things to suit their agenda, which their viewers eat up. 

Question for you though: Did you call for reigning in Fox News blatantly when they blatantly spread conspiracy theories, all of which were proven false, on it's airwaves?  Or is this only applicable to things said against the President?  The Seth Rich cover-up theory is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

CNN still has good reporting.  It's primarily on their website, or in times of live events (their Ferguson coverage was excellent), but if you're looking to the main CNN channel for balanced news, that's a fools errand.  I say the same thing about Fox News and MSNBC.

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

 This is precisely the disingenuous speak I abhor. Quite certain you know at least some of the lies, yet you want to play this game. Not interested. 

Simply because I asked you to provide a single example of a lie propogated by CNN?  

(Which you failed to do)

And people wonder why I post "irony" so frequently.

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think you nailed the opinion part. However, doesn't the network have the ability to reign in the opinion if it becomes blatant lies? Also, the two examples I provided were in print, so there is that for what its worth. 

You are also correct regarding conservative commentary. I'll give them a lowercase e for effort as they could certainly do better. 

Look, I grew up with the CNN. In my opinion, there are merely a shell of what they once were. Disappointing. 

BTW, this is all simply my opinion. Doesn't necessarily make it factual. 

 

 

Headline News (old format) was news for people that wanted the most recent information, condensed, within 30 minutes, at any moment in time.  To me, it was perfect.  CNN (as you remember) tended to focus more on a few stories.  It was the channel you watched if you wanted exclusive coverage of a California earthquake, for example.  Fox News was the same.  Fox News was the first I noticed shifting into a blatant ideological slant in their coverage, which simultaneously shifted from coverage to almost exclusively op-ed.  That does not necessarily mean they were actually the first, just the first that I noticed.  It was very profitable for them, and other networks followed suit.

I cannot blame the outlets for being what they have become, as they are only providing something that people want.  What I find disturbing is that many people want news delivered to them in that fashion (which is not news at all), and then treat it as gospel.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

1) I'm cool with not talking about Russia in this thread.  As you mentioned, you brought it up, not me.

2) I would be considered "Trump opposition", as would many other well meaning tax payers who see major problems with our current POTUS.  Guess that makes us all DBs.  But this line of thinking is also a problem.  Just because one opposes the President doesn't make said person a "DB", as you so eloquently put it.  I know folks who vehemently disagreed with Obama, Bush, and Clinton.  They're still good people.

3) Yes, you're wrong about MSN.  In fact, you couldn't be more out in left field.

4) WaPo has been extremely accurate in their reporting during the Trump administration.  It's often not glowing of the President, but it's also not false.  If you want the sewer, go read HuffPo or Breitbart.

Sorry Brad, mean some Trump opposition are DBs. You know, like the one on this board..........

[TexasTiger 12,961]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/trump-abuses-his-power-in-the-cause-of-bigotry/2017/08/28/1f473e3c-8c22-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html

[AUFAN78 3,911]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The network does have that ability, but how often do any of them do it?  Maddow, Lewandowski, Hannity...they're all ideologues who will spin things to suit their agenda, which their viewers eat up. 

Question for you though: Did you call for reigning in Fox News blatantly when they blatantly spread conspiracy theories, all of which were proven false, on it's airwaves?  Or is this only applicable to things said against the President?  The Seth Rich cover-up theory is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

CNN still has good reporting.  It's primarily on their website, or in times of live events (their Ferguson coverage was excellent), but if you're looking to the main CNN channel for balanced news, that's a fools errand.  I say the same thing about Fox News and MSNBC.

Agree.

I think Fox did reign in Hannity? In fact, I am quite certain they did. 

Agree.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Simply because I asked you to provide a single example of a lie propogated by CNN?  

(Which you failed to do)

And people wonder why I post "irony" so frequently.

 

I thought you were being disingenuous. If you weren't, sorry. I simply struggle to understand how anyone paying attention could ask such a question.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

6 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

Headline News (old format) was news for people that wanted the most recent information, condensed, within 30 minutes, at any moment in time.  To me, it was perfect.  CNN (as you remember) tended to focus more on a few stories.  It was the channel you watched if you wanted exclusive coverage of a California earthquake, for example.  Fox News was the same.  Fox News was the first I noticed shifting into a blatant ideological slant in their coverage, which simultaneously shifted from coverage to almost exclusively op-ed.  That does not necessarily mean they were actually the first, just the first that I noticed.  It was very profitable for them, and other networks followed suit.

I cannot blame the outlets for being what they have become, as they are only providing something that people want.  What I find disturbing is that many people want news delivered to them in that fashion (which is not news at all), and then treat it as gospel.

Hard to argue with any of that. I wish someone would step up and give it an old school try.

And it truly is disturbing, particularly those that treat it as gospel, which apparently number in the millions.

[Strychnine 1,802]

35 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Hard to argue with any of that. I wish someone would step up and give it an old school try.

And it truly is disturbing, particularly those that treat it as gospel, which apparently number in the millions.

 

Personally, I find all of our television news networks to be unwatchable.  I can draw my own conclusions based on the facts, and I would prefer a complete and unbiased presentation of said facts.  I definitely do not want facts delivered to me in a manner that purports to support my ideology.  That is dangerous, as an ideological echo chamber does nothing but erode critical thinking in many.  I consider the old format Headline News to be perfect, as it simply bombarded you with news in a condensed fashion.  No biased diatribes, or bias at all.  Responsibility was placed upon the viewer to put forth effort to learn more, which generally involved multiple sources.