TrumPutinGate

[Orange_Crush]

I am curious about the "unacceptable implications" a legitimate Trump victory carry. Expound?

He's apparently blind to the hypocrisy of this statement:

Personally, I will never come to terms with the reality of it. Collusion and/or interference are the only reasonable explanations. Trump winning a fair and legitimate election carries unacceptable implications.

And this acccusation:

Your ability to hold the views which you have is becoming more understandable. Truth seems to be an irrelevant factor.

lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's not about the media with which you disagree, it's about the objective of the media.

And in your opinion, Fox News' objective is wrong, and CNN's is right (despite the CNN fake news scandals).

So again... It's OK when it's against someone you disagree with, but not when it's against someone you agree with.

In other words, it's not wrong on principle to attack the press and breed distrust against the media?

 

[FLVOL69]

I'm reluctant to engage in any discussion with you, but here goes. I'm not seeing your point.

You're outmatched, that's for sure

 

[luthervol]

I am curious about the "unacceptable implications" a legitimate Trump victory carry. Expound?

I'm not going to expound. I think you and a few others are capable of reading the meaning. I'm not going to open that can of worms and subject myself to the fall out. In this case, I'm going to leave room for plausible deniability.

 

[FLVOL69]

I'm not going to expound. I think you and a few others are capable of reading the meaning. I'm not going to open that can of worms and subject myself to the fall out. In this case, I'm going to leave room for plausible deniability.

*

 

[McDad]

I'm not going to expound. I think you and a few others are capable of reading the meaning. I'm not going to open that can of worms and subject myself to the fall out. In this case, I'm going to leave room for plausible deniability.

Fortune favors the bold.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I appreciate the short discussion. That wasn't as painful as I had feared.

Oh, wait until it hits you. :hi:

I'll brace myself.

I am curious about the "unacceptable implications" a legitimate Trump victory carry. Expound?

I'm not going to expound. I think you and a few others are capable of reading the meaning. I'm not going to open that can of worms and subject myself to the fall out. In this case, I'm going to leave room for plausible deniability.

And... When the pain finally hits.

 

[McDad]

He's apparently blind to the hypocrisy of this statement:



And this acccusation:



lol

Since he opted out... the unacceptable for me is that an election of free people is fraudulently rigged in favor of a particular candidate. Free people making a choice, even a bad one, may make me scratch my head but it doesn't mean something isn't acceptable.

 

[luthervol]

And in your opinion, Fox News' objective is wrong, and CNN's is right (despite the CNN fake news scandals).

So again... It's OK when it's against someone you disagree with, but not when it's against someone you agree with.

In other words, it's not wrong on principle to attack the press and breed distrust against the media?

I would expect you to see it that way.

There are levels at which Fox and CNN are not comparable, and it's those differences that ultimately matter most . When truthfully educating your viewers is secondary to pushing an agenda, then criticism is deserved.

 

[MT LeConte]

The Democratic Party is burning down to the ground w/no solutions how to put the fire out by showing only hate & discourse for their duly elected President.

Those damn nasty Democrats. And after the Right was so respectful and kind to Obama for eight years.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since he opted out... the unacceptable for me is that an election of free people is fraudulently rigged in favor of a particular candidate. Free people making a choice, even a bad one, may make me scratch my head but it doesn't mean something isn't acceptable.

For me, I'm open to pretty much anything here and just want the truth to come out. But for anyone to fully admit to limiting possibilities of what may possibly be true based on their feelings, while then accusing others of an inability to recognize or accept truth...

Well, that just becomes too much.

 

[McDad]

...truthfully educating....

Fantasy world.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I would expect you to see it that way.

There are levels at which Fox and CNN are not comparable, and it's those differences that ultimately matter most . When truthfully educating your viewers is secondary to pushing an agenda, then criticism is deserved.

I'm asking you a very simple question that you shouldn't have to answer with an appeal to relative perception.

Is attacking the media (and calling them enemies, breeding distrust...) objectively wrong on principle? Or is it not objectively wrong on principle?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Fantasy world.

He'd already jumped the shark, but with that one.... Wait. What's worse than jumping the shark in this context?

 

[FLVOL69]

Obama was 100% correct about Fox.

Yes he was, Number one for a reason !

 

[McDad]

For me, I'm open to pretty much anything here and just want the truth to come out. But for anyone to fully admit to limiting possibilities of what may possibly be true based on their feelings, while then accusing others of an inability to recognize or accept truth...

Well, that just becomes too much.

The facts are typically very slow in coming, too. I believe it is best to have a healthy skepticism with all news. I'm not sure why that idea has been abandoned.

 

[FLVOL69]

The facts are typically very slow in coming, too. I believe it is best to have a healthy skepticism with all news. I'm not sure why that idea has been abandoned.

The fact of the matter is nothing occurred it's been it's been over a year man come on .this is red scare bull**** all over again kill the Rosenbergs!

 

[McDad]

The fact of the matter is nothing occurred it's been it's been over a year man come on .

I read an update on politifact last night. People met or conversed. The subjects of discussion, legality, proof, and effect are very thin or nonexistent, though.

At least that was my take on their summary.

 

[FLVOL69]

I read an update on politifact last night. People met or conversed. The subjects of discussion, legality, proof, and effect are very thin or nonexistent, though.

At least that was my take on their summary.

There's nothing to it , no laws were broken and even the liberal dip **** Alan Dershowitz is on Trumps side. As much as I detest his politics he is a smart guy .

 

[luthervol]

I'm asking you a very simple question that you shouldn't have to answer with an appeal to relative perception.

Is attacking the media (and calling them enemies, breeding distrust...) objectively wrong on principle? Or is it not objectively wrong on principle?

Attacking the media as an institution is wrong. Attacking various segments of the media based on their practices is justified. Trump and co. have a strategy of attacking the legitimate and legitimizing the illegitimate. It was his calculated strategy from day one and it has worked better than I would have ever expected.

 

[orangeluvr]

The left has made excuses and dismissed every scandal to ever hit a fellow democrat so you all don't need to try to act all righteous all of a sudden.

:lolabove::lolabove:

 

[InVOLuntary]

Not all truth is open to interpretation. But Trump and the far right have had a calculated strategy from day one to blur the lines between truth and fiction and convince their followers that they can't believe anything they read or hear unless it comes from a right wing source. They've been amazingly effective.

Show me one right wing news source that's been blatantly caught on video admitting to purposefully trying to make up news against Clinton, Bernie, or any other liberal candidate. Name one right wing news source that has been colluding with the RNC to promote one candidate. I can name several major news outlets that are part of the DNC.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Typo on my part. Two more made me far less skeptical

I thought that is what you meant but was just clarifying.

 

[McDad]

There's nothing to it , no laws were broken and even the liberal dip **** Alan Dershowitz is on Trumps side. As much as I detest his politics he is a smart guy .

It's the "birther" movement but for Dems.

 

[orangeluvr]

You guys lost because of Obama and the economy , worst president ever! The healthcare takeover was the icing on the cake . Get used to it Clyde, we're going to be around for many years to come..😂

Man you really are.......:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy: