Faith writes:
Woah, is that list of talk show hosts a perfect example of Leftist fake news! What a perfect example of Leftist smears, and you accept it as fact.
The information in the table is from their Wikipedia pages.
You've probably never listened to a one of them.
I'm not supposed to have to. You're the one who introduced them into the discussio , so you're the one who's supposed to tell us what evidence they presented supporting the arguments you're making.
They are all upright good people who don't deserve such treatment,...
They don't deserve short summaries of their Wikipedia pages?
...and this kind of smear campaign against conservatives...
How is presenting information from their Wikipedia pages a smear campaign?
...is a main element of exactly what I mean by how the Left is going to bring down the country. The nation can't stand much more of this evil.
By evil you mean Wikipedia?
I may look up the claims later, but it hardly looks worth the time it's such a bunch of PC name calling which I know is all false.
Much of your problem is the things you know without looking them up.
Mark Levin has written some great books that you ought to take a look at: Men in Black, about the Supreme Court, Liberty and Tyranny, about how the Left is destroying the liberty this nation was founded on and replacing it with socialist tyranny, and his latest that is coming out in May: Unfreedom of the Press. Can't think of one I'm forgetting. Dare you to read any of them. But he's not the only one of the list to have written good books, it's just that I'm most interested in his at the moment. A couple of Michael Savage's sound good too though.
If you want to read these books and introduce their information into the discussion to support your arguments then I think that would be a good idea.
Reminds me of a fake news case that keeps going around about Trump though it is totally false: the idea that he supports white supremacists based on his statement in connection with the demonstration in Charlottesville that there are "good people on both sides." In context it is very clear he was talking about the issue of preserving or removing Confederate statues, not referring to the white supremacists or any person or group there at the moment.
People coming at the statue controversy from a perspective of historical preservation were not marching alongside groups chanting phrases like, "You shall not replace us" and "Blood and soil" (a Nazi phrase invoking their right to expand their territory into neighboring countries - the Nazi policy was known as "lebensraum", briefly, living space) and "The South will rise again" and "Hail Trump" (a reference to Heil Hitler) and "White lives matter." Historical preservationists
*are* very fine people (in my own opinion since I'm one myself), and no doubt some were present, but not with the white supremacists and nationalists who any decent person (any "very fine people") would avoid. Historical preservationists were not the people chanting racist Nazi phrases and engaging in violence.
Trump's Charlottesville comments are just one piece of evidence of Trump racism. I've recounted the other evidence of Trump racism in past posts, for instance
Message 128,
Message 143 and
Message 535.
But of course the fake news...
Your definition of fake news is news you don't like, not news that is untrue.
...persists because that's what the Left does, it has no interest in the truth, certainly no interest in respecting their political opponents and other human beings, only in smearing Trump and his supporters.
The only smearing and expressions of hate are coming from you. There's nothing inherently evil about conservative or liberal points of view. Trump, in his current incarnation, is a conservative, and there's nothing wrong with that. But he's also racist, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic, cruel, venal, vengeful, ignorant, amoral and dishonest. He is pathologically driven to tell lies, often for no reason, for instance recently about where his own father was born (the Bronx, by the way, not Germany).
Which is clearly also what the Leftists who wrote the descriptions of the talk show hosts also intended. There isn't a shred of truth in any of it, it just shows the evil character of those who wrote it.
Well let's be clear about who wrote those short summaries in the table: I did, using Wikipedia as a source.
You wanted examples of fake news, there's one, or actually more than one. You have a penchant for putting out quotes you treat as facts that are actually fake news,...
How can quoting what someone actually said, often in the form of a YouTube video of the actual person saying the actual words, be fake news? A quote or a video would seem the opposite of fake news. Do you have some examples of these supposedly fake quotes?
...as well as the evidence that supposedly supports them, a real inclination toward the Left I'd say.
Whatever the form of the evidence, I would hope that all people contributing here would argue from an evidence-based position.
Opinion and innuendo are where it starts.
Opinion, innuendo and disparagement are usually all your posts contain. They're pretty much fact free.
It's also where the Mueller probe started.
What became the Mueller probe began under former FBI Director James Comey when DNC emails began being leaked and Australian authorities informed the FBI that a couple of months earlier George Papadopoulos had told them that Russia had emails that would embarrass Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos was a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, so Comey initiated an investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign.
There was no criminal charge for them to investigate, which is the usual starting point for such an investigation, ...
You've got things backwards. In cases like this it is suspicious activity that initiates an investigation, not criminal charges. Criminal charges are a possible outcome of the investigation.
...it was all somebody's snarky statement based on nothing whatever, that Trump must have colluded with Russia.
I don't know what "snarky statement" you're referring to, but a Trump campaign adviser knowing two months in advance about Russian email hacking of the DNC is not "nothing whatever." Interestingly, "nothing whatever" is what Papadopoulos did when the Russians informed him about hacking the DNC, instead of informing the FBI.
I think it may have come from Hillary...
Again, the origins of the Mueller investigation trace back to Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.
...who is in fact the real colluder with Russia which I hope will eventually be exposed for all to see.
You can't collude with someone you have no contact with:
- Trump campaign: 17 officials and advisers had more than 100 contacts with Russians.
- Clinton campaign: No contact with Russians.
So Mueller himself said there was no collusion with Russia on Trump's part or anyone in his campaign...
How many times do you have to be reminded that the Mueller report is not yet public - no one outside the Justice Department could possibly know what "Mueller himself said." We only have Attorney General William Barr's 4-page summary of the principle findings, which does include a couple brief quotes from the Mueller report, one about collusion:
quote:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Mueller doesn't say the Trump Campaign was cleared, only that conspiracy or coordination was not established. There's plenty of evidence already in the public domain about contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russia, and the Mueller report likely contains more or at least more detail, but because of the high bar in proving conspiracy Mueller apparently decided to level no criminal charges.
...and now the Left can't give up the idea that has dominated their thinking for over two years and has to go to great lengths to "prove" that somebody is lying because there must have been collusion.
It's already been proven that "somebody is lying," and they're going to jail. Some have already gone to jail or been sentenced, like Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan. If the over 100 Russian contacts were all innocent, why do all Trump campaign people lie about them?
Such as the Trump tower event which you mentioned. Don't you think Mueller covered that? If he thought it involved collusion he would have said so.
Since no one's read the Mueller report, how do you know it doesn't say that the Trump Tower meeting likely involved collusion but that the available evidence isn't enough to carry the day in court?
Oh and somebody who ought to know, a political leader from New York, said not to expect the judicial efforts there to show anything against Trump either.
I'll see your "political leader from New York" (Rudolf Giuliani?) and raise you Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey and former Trump Campaign official, who has repeatedly stated that Trump has much more to fear from the Southern District of New York than from the Mueller investigation.
I have a brief description of my idea of fake news on the fossil thread earlier too:
Message 23.
If you'd like to introduce anything from that message into this thread then go right ahead.
I agree I'm bad at producing sources and evidence but there is some.
I don't agree that you're bad at providing sources, but you are very bad at providing evidence. That's not your fault, though, because you can't provide something that doesn't exist.
...but how dare you produce that list of character assassinations and tell me I have to produce evidence against it. How dare you.
The information comes from their Wikipedia pages, and you misunderstood my point, which was that the sources you provided are not sources of fact but of opinion, but that to the extent that they do provide facts that it is your job to introduce those facts into the discussion.
You claim you aren't on the Left, but you are a shill for the Left at least. Yuck.
You can't seem to keep your emotions and your politics separate.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)
