The Right Side of the News

There's no facts, no information, no reasoned argumentation, nothing of substance to reply to. Just hate.Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that Schiff is the most hateful, horrible, dishonest, lying, cheating person in the world. It doesn't change the fact that the testimony of Trump administration officials before the House Intelligence Committee still happened. Try commenting on something real like that instead of constantly giving voice to all your hate. It grows old.--Percy

This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The number of people believing something is not what lends it credibility. It's facts. Nobody's forgotten Marc9000, LamarkNewAge, Hyroglyphx or ICANT. Your "stuff" is notable by its complete lack of supporting evidence or reasoned argument. You're reasoning is apparently that Trump is innocent because the left are a bunch of liars who hate Trump, but this is another fallacy.Let's say you lived in a town where one of the policeman hated you, doesn't matter why. One day you go through a red light and he gives you a ticket. That he hates you does not mean you are not guilty of going through the red light.This is basically what you are arguing, that Trump is innocent because the left hates Trump. That's absurd. I have no idea how many hate Trump (neither do you), but many are very frightened and disturbed by the damage he's doing to our country, to American institutions, and to the very idea of America itself.And even if everyone on the left hated Trump (they don't), it wouldn't have anything to do with whether Trump committed impeachable offenses. Trump administration officials testified before the House Intelligence Committee that Trump attempted to coerce the Ukraine into announcing investigations into the Bidens that would help his presidential campaign. He attempted to coerce them into doing this by holding out the carrot of an Oval Office visit and by the withholding of military aid. There's no counter-evidence, and the first day of presentations of the Trump defense team indicates they don't have any.They, and you, are ignoring everything testified to before the House Intelligence Committee. These witnesses from the Trump administration described different but overlapping parts of the same story. Your right-wing commentators probably don't talk about that testimony, I'll bet, unless it's to lie about it. It's all on video, so if you have any claims about the testimony then claim away.What Trump's lawyers have provided is a list of "facts" from an alternative universe. In their pretend universe the Ukraine didn't even know the military aid was being held up, when the reality was that they were already inquiring about what happened to the aid before Trump's July 25th phone call.They also pretend it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election for Hillary, not Russia for Trump, when there is no evidence for that whatsoever. It's just completely made up.And they pretend the subpoenas were invalid because the House had not voted to begin an impeachment inquiry, despite that no such vote is required (check your Constitution), and anyway the White House continued to ignore the subpoenas even after there was a vote.They also pretend the phone call transcript doesn't include a quid pro quo, even though it does ("do us a favor though"), and even though Mick Mulvaney said at a news conference, "We do it all the time, get used to it."And they pretend the president was denied due process in the House, despite that he was invited but declined.(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/...y-entitled-their-own-facts)Can you provide any support for these alternative "facts." It would be surprising if you could, because the president's men certainly couldn't. In this they are like you. They think it sufficient to simply say it, not show it. This is still the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Is there not one among you who can offer anything factual?--Percy

Duplicate post.Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

No citation? Just "I hear from time to time?" This completely unsupported claim is so typical of you. I have no idea how much news about Trump is negative, but I assume it is roughly equal to the number of bad things he does?And what negative news are you talking about? The news about Trump paying off mistresses to keep quiet while he was running for office? About attacking a federal judge who ruled against him because he was Hispanic? About the Access Hollywood tape where he bragged of grabbing women by the pussy? About the cheating at his charity? The Trump University fraud? The lying about millions of people voting illegally in 2016? The refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust? Cutting Social Security and Medicare? Lying about releasing his tax returns? Cutting EPA regulations protecting our environment? Withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities? Threatening Mexico about paying for his wall? Banning Muslims from a bunch of countries? Threatening separation of church and state?I'll stop there. The list goes on and on. Whether you personally liked these things or not, of course they're going to generate negative press. I guess I should have read ahead. Yes, that's exactly what I just said. Deservedly so. You're using the argumentum ad populum fallacy again. If Trump is doing good things then if you want other people to believe you then you can't just say it - you have to show it. You don't even attempt to do this. You just call us leftist (whether we are or not) haters (whether we are or not). How? Take the list I provided above and explain how the news media has misrepresented each of them. Once again you provide no reason why I should do so. Do you have facts standing behind anything you believe? Ones that aren't made up, that is? I keep issuing you this challenge, and you keep ignoring it. Here are links to the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Ignoring the opinion and analysis pieces because they are not reportage, find all the articles that are fake news. Did Kobe Bryant not die in a helicopter crash? Is the Coronavirus not surging across China? Did Trump not tweet that Schiff "has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!" About this last one, here's the tweet in case you missed it: So where's the fake news?--Percy

Empty claim. Don't say it - show it. Poor reading skills. I mentioned both Kim and Putin. I really really really wish you could say something factual. It seems neither of us will ever get our wish.--Percy

Of course they have an interest in doing that. That's why they signed the nuclear accord with Europe and the US, the one Trump withdrew the US from. Bald assertion with no substantiation. Also, it's the Islamic Republic of Iran. I had a feeling you were getting the full name of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) mixed up with full name of Iran.What we do know is that Iran has ramped up their nuclear efforts since the US withdrew and imposed harsh sanctions in 2018. Way to go, Trump.--Percy

You are very confused. I never claimed to know what Trump might do. I've called Trump rash and impulsive. I would never claim to be able to predict his actions. He surprises me every day.It was you who claimed to know what Trump would do. You claimed that by targeting cultural sites he only meant minor stuff like knocking over a statue when obviously he meant bombs and missiles and great destruction. And by the way, still a war crime. Apparently he didn't know that and eventually had to back down. The man's ignorance is monumental. You're seriously giving Trump credit for the accuracy of the military's missiles? Should we gave daily thanks to dear leader for the sunrise? You are still very confused. I made no such claims. I just took Trump at his word: "They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way."--Percy

I think you need to let love and compassion into your heart.--Percy

Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem, because in almost every reply to you I state that your claims are completely baseless. I often almost beg you to support what you say with facts and/or reasoned argumentation. This is a false claim you have repeated so many times that it rises to the level of a lie. Once again, here are the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Please point out the fake news. You won't be able to do that, of course, because your statement is false and has been for years. You're not only no good at keeping track of anything, you're also no good at telling truth from fiction. They say that confidence in one's knowledge increases the less one knows, which would explain your extreme confidence. And you mention this why? No no no, that's not true. You're are absolutely the best person to represent your point of view, one that is widely shared among Trumpists. You're just terrible at defending your views. You're only capable of repeating your opinions in baseless and unevidenced form over and over again. Are you kidding? There's a couple hundred people in Congress alone echoing views very much like yours. With about equal evidentiary support. Whether or not it's all right, it is most certainly untrue. Another baseless and unsupported declaration. If you're the person who never met a claim she could support, then Marc is the person who never met a discussion he could keep straight.--Percy

What are you referring to when you say I assume it is all true? Is it too much trouble to ask you to use the quote facility?Are you referring to where I asked what negative news you're talking about? Whether it was the news about Trump paying off mistresses to keep quiet while he was running for office? About attacking a federal judge who ruled against him because he was Hispanic? About the Access Hollywood tape where he bragged of grabbing women by the pussy? About the cheating at his charity? The Trump University fraud? The lying about millions of people voting illegally in 2016? The refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust? Cutting Social Security and Medicare? Lying about releasing his tax returns? Cutting EPA regulations protecting our environment? Withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities? Threatening Mexico about paying for his wall? Banning Muslims from a bunch of countries? Threatening separation of church and state?Is that what you're referring to? I sure hope not, because if you think all that stuff is false then you are seriously delusional. We can go through it one by one if you like. A lot of it is on video, which I know you like. You quoted nothing I said and you're using pronouns, so I have to guess what you're talking about. I read Fox News, among other sources. Are you saying Fox News ignores whatever it is you're talking about? Are you going to offer any evidence of this? Here, once again, are links to the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Please provide some examples. Did you read your own link? You claimed 90-95% of media coverage of Trump is negative, but your link says 66%. You disproved your own claim. Use of the term "hatred" in the headline indicates a bit of bias, wouldn't you say? Kind of reminds me of you. The research was conducted by the Media Research Center, described by Media Research Center - Wikipedia like this:

quote:

---

The Media Research Center (MRC) is an American politically conservative content analysis group based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. It characterizes itself as a media watchdog, but Politico considers it an anti-mainstream advocacy group and the Columbia Journalism Review considers it "propaganda clothed as critique".

---

So trust the Pew study, ignore the MRC study.--Percy

Somehow missed your reply when you first posted it.I haven't driven or ridden in any Tesla yet. A friend and his wife both have the performance version of the Model 3 and they like them a lot. I did get a demo of the sound system, very impressive, puts my Prius to shame. Another friend is also considering the Tesla, and I'm piggybacking on the research he's doing.I assumed my Prius would be bad in snow, and even though it'll be 3 years old in April I had never driven it in any significant snow before last weekend. It was a very slippery snow, tough just to keep your footing in while walking, and we saw a couple fender benders on the way back from a hockey game. The Prius handled very well, I was surprised. Our house is up a couple steep hills and I was afraid it just wouldn't do it and we'd have to walk in, but though the anti-spin had to kick in a few times it mostly went right up.Yeah, there's something about 0-60 in 3.2 that awakens the teenager in me.--Percy

When climate change really kicks in they'll be saying that Wisconsin is the new Florida. --Percy

You're in effect vouching for a person you just met on the street. And your inability to distinguish between truth and fiction, to tie the little facts of reality into a narrative of truth, says you're unqualified to vouch for anyone. There are only 5000 US troops total in Iraq. It isn't possible that all our troops in Iraq were concentrated in just these two airbases. You're making it up, you misheard, or they're making it up. I've been repeatedly correct in my claims of what would eventually be revealed about these attacks. First I was right that the claim there were no casualties was a lie. Then I was right that it was more than just eleven. Then I was right that the injuries were more severe than being claimed by Trump.You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly wrong. The evidence says you should stop trusting your judgment and start trusting mine. By not listening to your sources (which you don't reveal) I escaped being fed false information. You're repeating something untrue. Repetition of something untrue after being repeatedly informed it is untrue and why it is untrue elevates it to a lie. Please stop lying. Yes, you're guessing. Poking around on the Internet I found that it only takes a couple hundred people to actually run each airbase. Those likely would be American troops. The rest, possibly thousands, were Iraqi troops responsible for providing airbase defense. They were flown out as reports of the incoming missiles became known.defense. (See Operation Martyr Soleimani - Wikipedia) Read the Wikipedia article and learn what actually happened. And you know this how? From actual reportage, or from listening to your favorite right-wing commentators? The latter, right? Again, you have to skill or intuition at detecting falsehood. When challenged you have repeatedly been unable to cite any fake news.--Percy

But isn't Fox News fairly reliable as a news outlet? Rather thin and cursory in their coverage, but honest and truthful? If we call Fox News fake aren't we guilty of the same kind of misrepresentations as the Trumpists?On the other hand it is more than fair to say that the analysis/opinion part of Fox News is just a propaganda arm for the Trump Administration.--Percy

Then it's extortion or coercion. It isn't nothing. A quid pro quo trading something in our national interest for something in the Ukraine national interest is very legitimate. But a quid pro quo trading something that benefits the president's personal election campaign for something in the Ukraine national interest is a high crime, one of the most serious breaches of the presidential oath of office possible, and a peril the framers most feared. Yes, Ukraine managed to stay clear of interference in a US presidential election by refusing to accede to Trump administration pressure to announce an investigation into the Bidens and the Democrats, and Trump released the aid after his scheme was exposed. To use an analogy, one is not innocent of bank robbery because one got caught during the robbery instead of after. Corruption investigations begin when some bit of evidence comes to light that indicates corruption. What is that bit of evidence? Trump most certainly considered Joe Biden a serious political opponent, the most likely nominee of the Democratic party in the 2020 election. Look at all those tweets about "sleepy Joe Biden. Here's an example from late last year: Your ability to tell truth from fiction is what is totally bogus. Manuscripts of Bolton's book have now come to light (ironically the leaks apparently come from the White House) revealing that Trump was fixated on Joe Biden and wanted him investigated by the Ukraine, coercing them to do it by withholding aid. From Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times:

quote:

---

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
...
In the manuscript, Mr. Bolton writes that Mr. Trump told him in August that he didn’t want to free up the aid until Ukraine turned over Russia investigation materials related to Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s opponent in 2016, and Mr. Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination this year.

---

What hint of corruption has Trump revealed that tells us the Bidens were up to something rotten, instead of that Trump just wanted to discredit a potential political rival in the upcoming election?Ukraine has opened an investigation, but not into the Bidens. After Lev Parnas made public Mike Hyde's texts about surveilling Yovanovich, they're investigating possible violations of their national sovereignty by Trump operatives performing surveillance on the American Embassy and its ambassador.The Trump administration is the most crooked and corrupt in American history.--Percy