Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:27 AM
353 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, Heathen, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (10 members, 343 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 122 (822656)
10-31-2017 2:47 AM


This is from MSN, hardly a conservative news source and I accessed it from the Yahoo main page, also not a conservative news source, So I was completely blown away by its content. I'll say it's honest, it's not fake news for a change, an amazing change, but something I'd expect to find at Infowars or Drudge or Front Page Mag or other conservative site. It's such a breath of fresh air I had to post it.

Couldn't find an appropriate thread though. The fake news thread I started has already gone through summation, and I've been asked to stay off the Trump Presidency thread. So I had to start a new one although I haven't been carefully enough following politics lately to have much to follow up with at the moment. But I'm sure it will draw plenty of flak, so have at it.

It doesn't have the author's name on it nfortunately.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

More than anything else, the indictments of Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates demonstrate the fraudulent nature of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The probe has little to do with Russian interference in last year’s election. Instead, it is calculated to protect Mueller and a cabal within the FBI and Justice Department who covered up crimes by Hillary Clinton because they believed it was likely that she would be elected president.

And once Mueller and then his friend and successor James Comey covered for Hillary, they had to keep covering. There was a reason that Mueller was so available when he was so swiftly appointed Special Counsel in May by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The Comey firing threatened to expose all that these same officials had swept under the rug. Yes, Rosenstein bit the bullet and drafted the memo that was the legal basis for firing Comey, but it would be followed by appointing Mueller.

In July, Comey preemptively exonerated Hillary despite her maintenance of a private email server and mishandling of classified material. By accusing her of being “extremely careless,” he purposely distracted attention from the context of the emails. Hillary and Bill Clinton operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, many of which are unsavory and criminal. Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the Clintons’ motivation for the private server.

The outlines of the Uranium One deal were not a secret. Media outlets like the New York Times reported on the U.S. government approval of a partial sale of the Canadian mining company to Rosatom, a Russian firm, while those who benefitted donated to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow.

Then came more detailed reports about how the FBI cracked the case of a major Russian effort to penetrate the North American uranium industry through a host of illegal activities, but somehow the whole matter was slow-walked and kept from U.S. government officials who had to approve the Uranium One deal. Mueller and Comey ultimately supervised the probe.

Meanwhile, the FBI’s email investigation was supervised by now-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has significant connections to the Clintons through his wife Jill McCabe. Hillary headlined a fundraiser for a group supporting Jill McCabe’s campaign for the Virginia state senate, as first reported in the Wall Street Journal. The National Legal and Policy Center subsequently exposed more Clintonista support, including from then-Clinton Foundation operative Doug Band who wrote a personal check for $50,000.

The plot thickened last week when the bombshell hit that it was Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee that paid for the Fusion GPS dossier. Reporters were chagrined to realize that they had been lied to repeatedly for months and months. Hillary now claims that the first she heard of it was when the dossier memo was printed by BuzzFeed in January, a likely lie. As long as this “what did Hillary know and when did Hillary know it” question is of no interest to Mueller, his investigation has no credibility whatsoever. But therein lies the dilemma for Mueller. A real probe of Hillary would mean a review of his own actions and those of his colleagues. He’s cornered.

Mueller’s strategy is clear. He has to rescue himself, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others from their complicity in Hillary’s dealings with the Russians. Mueller is creating a diversion by going after Manafort, the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Just about any inquiry into Manafort’s dealings over the years was sure to yield results.

Donald Trump’s demeanor invites assumptions by some about his commitment to democratic values, but it is Hillary and her campaign that colluded with the Russians, paid the hit squad Fusion GPS to manufacture and plant information on her opponent, and hired people to provoke violence at Trump rallies.

The Clintons’ ruthlessness, along with the unwillingness of the nation’s top enforcement officials to stand up to them, has created a Constitutional crisis.

Views expressed in op-eds are not the views of The Daily Caller

.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 AM Faith has responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:16 AM Faith has responded
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2017 5:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 2 of 122 (822657)
10-31-2017 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-31-2017 2:47 AM


Fake Or Real? How To Tell
Faith writes:

. I'll say it's honest, it's not fake news for a change, an amazing change, but something I'd expect to find at Infowars or Drudge or FrontPage Mag or other conservative sites. It's such a breath of fresh air I had to post it.

I'm not taking sides here...but I have to know how one tells whether an article is fake or factual. All I see here is one opinion...but I don't necessarily see any facts that would lead me to believe that this article is any truer than the headlines I read every day. Seriously...I want to know how I can tell from what I read (especially in the opinion section of these news sources) whats real and whats fake. It sounds to me as if a giant propaganda war is happening in our country...and I want to know how to tell the reality from the fantasy.

As a counterexample, I just read this article, which also leaves me more confused than ever over what actually is going on.

New York Times Opinion Section writes:

The Plot Against America by MICHELLE GOLDBERG

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

On Monday morning, after America learned that Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort’s lobbying partner, Rick Gates, had been indicted and turned themselves in to federal authorities, the president tried to distance himself from the unfolding scandal. “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign,” the president wrote in one tweet. A few minutes later, he added, in another, “Also, there is NO COLLUSION!”

At almost the exact same time, news broke suggesting that the F.B.I. has evidence of collusion. We learned that one of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy aides, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his attempts to solicit compromising information on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. Despite Trump’s hysterical denials and attempts at diversion, the question is no longer whether there was cooperation between Trump’s campaign and Russia, but how extensive it was.

In truth, that’s been clear for a while. If it’s sometimes hard to grasp the Trump campaign’s conspiracy against our democracy, it’s due less to lack of proof than to the impudent improbability of its B-movie plotline. Monday’s indictments offer evidence of things that Washington already knows but pretends to forget. Trump, more gangster than entrepreneur, has long surrounded himself with bottom-feeding scum, and for all his nationalist bluster, his campaign was a vehicle for Russian subversion.

We already knew that Manafort offered private briefings about the campaign to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The indictment accuses him of having been an unregistered foreign agent for another Putin-aligned oligarch, the former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. Trump wasn’t paying Manafort, who reportedly sold himself to the candidate by offering to work free. But he intended to profit from his connection with the campaign, emailing an associate, “How do we use to get whole?” If there were no other evidence against Trump, we could conclude that he was grotesquely irresponsible in opening his campaign up to corrupt foreign infiltration.

But of course, there is other evidence against Trump. His campaign was told that Russia wanted to help it, and it welcomed such help. On June 3, remember, the music publicist Rob Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr. to broker a Trump Tower meeting at which a Russian source would deliver “very high level and sensitive information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. responded with delight: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

The guilty plea by Papadopoulos indicates what information Trump Jr. might have been expecting. An obscure figure in foreign policy circles, Papadopoulos was one of five people who Trump listed as foreign policy advisers during a Washington Post editorial board meeting last year. A court filing, whose truth Papadopoulos affirms, says that in April 2016, he met with a professor who he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials.” The professor told him that Russians had “dirt” on Clinton, including “thousands of emails.” (The Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta had been hacked in March.)

In the following months, Papadopoulos and his supervisors emailed back and forth about plans for a campaign trip to Russia. According to the court filing, one campaign official emailed another, “We need someone to communicate that D.T. is not doing these trips.” D.T. clearly stood for Donald Trump. The email continued, “It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.”

Thanks to an August Washington Post story, we know that this email was sent by Manafort. Some have interpreted the exchange to mean that Manafort wanted a low-level person to decline the invitation, not to go to Russia. But the court filing also cites a “campaign supervisor” encouraging Papadopoulos and “another foreign policy adviser” to make the trip. Papadopoulos never went to Russia, but the foreign policy adviser Carter Page did.

So here’s where we are. Trump put Manafort, an accused money-launderer and unregistered foreign agent, in charge of his campaign. Under Manafort’s watch, the campaign made at least two attempts to get compromising information about Clinton from Russia. Russia, in turn, provided hacked Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.

Russia also ran a giant disinformation campaign against Clinton on social media and attempted to hack voting systems in at least 21 states. In response to Russia’s election meddling, Barack Obama’s administration imposed sanctions. Upon taking office, Trump reportedly made secret efforts to lift them. He fired the F.B.I. director James Comey to stop his investigation into “this Russia thing,” as he told Lester Holt. The day after the firing, he met with Russia’s foreign minister and its ambassador to America, and told them: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

We’ve had a year of recriminations over the Clinton campaign’s failings, but Trump clawed out his minority victory only with the aid of a foreign intelligence service. On Monday we finally got indictments, but it’s been obvious for a year that this presidency is a crime.

So we have two entirely differing opinions, both published on MSN through their partners. How can I tell whether either one of them is closer to the facts?

Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 2:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2017 4:34 AM Phat has responded
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 8:58 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13307
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 3 of 122 (822658)
10-31-2017 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
10-31-2017 3:07 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
A good rule of thumb is that if Faith supports it, it’s probably fake.

And the reasoning is appallingly bad. Mueller was tasked with investigating the Trump campaign so to suggest he is doing if for other reasons is dubious in the extreme. Manafort headed Trumps campaign for a while - so if he’s an obvious crook with Russian connections of course he is going to be indicted, and indicted early. Mueller is being attacked for doing his job, which tells you a lot about the author’s biases.

It’s another example of the Trump strategy of trying to divert attention from the investigation by attacking the Clintons. It’s certainly convincing me that Trump is desperate to cover up what went on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 10-31-2017 6:10 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 7:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 95 by ramoss, posted 11-02-2017 5:10 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29609
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 4 of 122 (822659)
10-31-2017 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-31-2017 4:34 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
And it's not like the Clintons haven't been investigated already. When il Donald asks "Why hasn't Hilary been investigated?" the honest answer is "She has, and so far nothing has been found."

il Donald's tactics are the same dishonest tactics used by Creationists and Biblical Christians; when shown to be speaking falsehoods change the subject and the return again and again to raise the same questions that have already been refuted a thousand times.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2017 4:34 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 1:06 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 5 of 122 (822661)
10-31-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-31-2017 4:34 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2017 4:34 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 122 (822666)
10-31-2017 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
10-31-2017 3:07 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
The piece in the OP (its title by the way is "Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud") is remarkable for having been published on MSN, one of the battalions of anti-Trump news sources that are always what the world hears without looking for it; otherwise it's in keeping with what's been said all along by the side that supports Trump, the side you have to make a point of looking for because it's suppressed. I have no trouble identifying the New York opinion piece as the fake news, but since it's the view that you would have been hearing if you don't read the opposing side I can understand why you'd be confused.

I'm puzzled how the piece I posted got into MSM, and how it escaped the suppressing forces to reach the public. I wonder who wrote it. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find out so I'll go look for it eventually.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 9:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 8:17 PM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 7 of 122 (822670)
10-31-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-31-2017 2:47 AM


It doesn't have the author's name on it nfortunately.

It is an op-ed piece posted by Peter Flaherty (21 hrs ago as of 9am here). It is from The Daily Caller, and at the bottom it says

quote:
Views expressed in op-eds are not the views of The Daily Caller.

Other articles he has written recently are

Where Are Republicans On The House IT Scandal? and

Charlottesville And Moral Equivalence

quote:
Peter Flaherty is President of the National Legal and Policy Center.

He's a right wing columnist and appears to be a conspiracy theorist.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 2:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 9:21 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 122 (822671)
10-31-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
10-31-2017 9:16 AM


Thanks for the information. My question is how did he get published by MSM, which wouldn't ordinarily float such a view as his.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:16 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:35 AM Faith has responded
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:06 PM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 9 of 122 (822673)
10-31-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
10-31-2017 9:21 AM


Thanks for the information. ...

You're welcome.

...My question is how did he get published by MSM, which wouldn't ordinarily float such a view as his.

MSN has many branches, and having op-eds from different viewpoints is one, it's called being open-minded. Methinks your opinion of MSN is wrong.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 9:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 9:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 10 of 122 (822674)
10-31-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
10-31-2017 8:58 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
Faith writes:

I'm puzzled how the piece I posted got into MSM, and how it escaped the suppressing forces to reach the public.

I don’t read MSN very much, so I’m not familiar with their editorial practices, but I do read the NYT and Washington Post almost every day, and they frequently print editorials with viewpoints opposite to their general editorial stances, at least several a week. I also read Fox News, and they do, the same thing. For example, today Fox News has an editorial titled Trump's war on media is truly dangerous.

I think those who approach what they read with an attitude dependent upon the source and/or whose opinions are already locked and loaded are going to find only what confirms their views. A better approach to opinion pieces from both sides is to examine how much of what they say is based upon established facts.

—Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 8:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2017 10:09 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 122 (822675)
10-31-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
10-31-2017 9:35 AM


All I know is I was flabbergasted to find such a view headlined on my Yahoo home page, not something I'd expect to see from Yahoo or MSN. I mean, unprecedented. Hard to see how I've misjudged them. That kind of perspective is of course to be found all the time on the conservative and pro-Trump websites and radio talk shows and so on, but again, I was absolutely amazed to see it on Yahoo. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a similar example.

Anyway, although I haven't been following all this much at all, since I do tune into the suppressed conservative and pro-Trump sources from time to time I do hear bits and pieces of the opposite of the usual Trump bashing found here for instance, and in that New York Times opinion. I'd pretty much accepted that those views will never reach the public. So to me it is a very big deal to find it out there like that.

There IS a conspiracy, a gigantic many-tentacledd conspiracy to bring down Trump. It's not that I'm very happy with Trump at this point myself, but I'm certainly aware that the public is being fed a nonstop smear campaign against him. I recently was treated to the early morning CBS "news" at a relative's home and it was a continuous stream of anti-Trump commentary masquerading as news. I hadn't known until then it was that bad, I mean it was continuous, nonstop. I finally had to leave the room. THAT is what the public is getting day in and day out. Which is fine with most people of course, and fine with most here of course. And as I said, I've pretty much given up and accepted that we are now living in a world of engineered political lies. Which is why the escape into the public eye of this opinion piece by Flaherty was so astonishing to me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 11:53 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 12 of 122 (822676)
10-31-2017 10:06 AM


One reasonable leftist voice
I did see, I think yesterday on Yahoo, a presentation of the views of Bryan Cranston, the actor who played the lead in "Breaking Bad." He made it very clear he was not for Trump, and yet he argued forcibly against those anti-Trumpers who seem bent on bringing him down, saying he's our President and if we bring him down we are doing damage not just to Trump, not just to right-wingers but to the country. He also said people should recognize that there are patriots who love the country on both sides. I thought that was the most reasonable political statement I'd heard from a leftist during this whole miserable reign of nonstop Trump-bashing.
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 10-31-2017 12:05 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 13 of 122 (822677)
10-31-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
10-31-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
A better approach to opinion pieces from both sides is to examine how much of what they say is based upon established facts.

Unfortunately, there are no real straight factual sources. We have to accept that every source has its bias, with the primary bias being towards sensational reporting.

I think those who approach what they read with an attitude dependent upon the source and/or whose opinions are already locked and loaded are going to find only what confirms their views.

That is certainly true. This thread exists solely because someone found stuff they liked in what they considered an unlikely place and not because there was any objective reason to believe what they read.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 9:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-01-2017 8:15 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 14 of 122 (822683)
10-31-2017 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
10-31-2017 9:52 AM


Faith writes:

There IS a conspiracy, a gigantic many-tentacledd conspiracy to bring down Trump.

Reporting the truth is not a conspiracy.

I recently was treated to the early morning CBS "news" at a relative's home and it was a continuous stream of anti-Trump commentary masquerading as news. I hadn't known until then it was that bad, I mean it was continuous, nonstop. I finally had to leave the room.

Has it ever crossed your mind that bad presidents get criticized by people in the press?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 9:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:16 PM Taq has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 122 (822686)
10-31-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
10-31-2017 10:06 AM


Re: One reasonable leftist voice
Faith writes:

He made it very clear he was not for Trump, and yet he argued forcibly against those anti-Trumpers who seem bent on bringing him down, saying he's our President and if we bring him down we are doing damage not just to Trump, not just to right-wingers but to the country.


The point of bringing down a bad President is to prevent him from doing greater damage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 10:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 PM ringo has responded

  
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017