ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
This is what happens when you have a president with balls.

Migrant caravan abandons plan to travel to US border

https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/migrant-caravan-abandons-plan-travel-us-border-doc-13p1ry3
From that article:

"The just over 1,000 migrants who currently make up the caravan -- many traveling in families of up to 20 people -- have been camped in the southern town since the weekend, deciding their next move in the face of daily attacks from Trump."

"Daily attacks from Trump?"

You mean, his attempts to PREVENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION? To PROTECT OUR BORDERS? To keep this caravan from OVERWHELMING our border security using brute force and sheer numbers?

Think about it. Who is really the attacker and who is really the attacked here?

Yet the press paints the aggressors as the aggrieved, and vice-versa. What a stupid time to be alive.
 
Anybody here think Sarah Huckabee Sanders is sexy?

I watched the Trump thing with "the Baltics" and I'm pretty sure they're better at speaking English than our own president. God, he is so banal.

Also, for a guy who spends his entire life faking some "alpha male" image, he's unbelievably weak on his stances lately. "There's a great chance of it happening, there's also a great chance of it not happening." "We'll see what happens..." is one he's been using a lot lately. And this is referring to countries like Russia and North Korea. Almost makes me miss the "little Rocket Man" days.

God - how bad did cucky Bone Spurs want to get spanked by Hope Hicks? He misses her every day, no doubt.

One more thing...how do you guys feel about Cal giving a scholarship to an unhinged Muslim murderer like Enes Kanter? Surprised that the campus wasn't on lockdown for the entire year.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Caitlin Jenner is better looking than Sanders. At least he (she) isn’t a fatass.
 
Can someone explain what the big deal was with Sinclair making their TV stations rattle off a harmless and bipartisan disclaimer? Libs are losing their minds, and all my local stations said was "Be on the look out for fake news, and if you feel we aren't doing a good enough job, either too much left OR right, you can contact us here and we WILL respond".

So liberals are mad that a TV station owner is keeping his staff in check? Oh the horror!

You know, if anchors or the writers didn't have an agenda, this wouldn't be a problem.

This was my reaction. They were all supposed to be saying the same exact thing. They were doing a promo and reading a scripted mission statement.

I think most people only watched that video and thought they were all 'reporting' the same thing. They didn't take the time to find out that it was a scripted mission statement, not a news report. Nor did they take the time to read the entire statement for themselves.
 
This was my reaction. They were all supposed to be saying the same exact thing. They were doing a promo and reading a scripted mission statement.

I think most people only watched that video and thought they were all 'reporting' the same thing. They didn't take the time to find out that it was a scripted mission statement, not a news report. Nor did they take the time to read the entire statement for themselves.

Yup. Its the same way people refer to cable news as “news.” It’s opinion, period. There’s no such thing as “fake news,” only opinions that some people disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
There’s no such thing as “fake news,” only opinions that some people disagree with.

I disagree. There most definitely is a such thing as 'fake news'. There are dozens examples of falsehoods being reported as facts, not opinions. And it's not that someone agrees or disagrees, it's that they're flat out false.

A journalists reporting the MLK bust was removed from the WH isn't an opinion. They're stating it as a fact. It was either removed or not. MSNBC allowing Schiff to go on TV every week and claim, for a fact, that there's evidence of Collusion, then reporting on it, isn't an opinion. There's either evidence or not.

Those are just two off the top of my head. There are plenty more that can easily be looked up. We've seen numerous stories corrected or pulled, even several journalists, not opinionated TV hosts, get fired because of fake news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
I disagree. There most definitely is a such thing as 'fake news'. There are dozens examples of falsehoods being reported as facts, not opinions. And it's not that someone agrees or disagrees, it's that they're flat out false.

A journalists reporting the MLK bust was removed from the WH isn't an opinion. They're stating it as a fact. It was either removed or not. MSNBC allowing Schiff to go on TV every week and claim, for a fact, that there's evidence of Collusion, then reporting on it, isn't an opinion. There's either evidence or not.

Those are just two off the top of my head. There are plenty more that can easily be looked up. We've seen numerous stories corrected or pulled, even several journalists, not opinionated TV hosts, get fired because of fake news.

Fake news wasn’t even a thing until Trump started using it. He could advocate for giving BJs to goats and a lot of people would get on board with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fuzz77
I disagree. There most definitely is a such thing as 'fake news'. There are dozens examples of falsehoods being reported as facts, not opinions. And it's not that someone agrees or disagrees, it's that they're flat out false.

A journalists reporting the MLK bust was removed from the WH isn't an opinion. They're stating it as a fact. It was either removed or not. MSNBC allowing Schiff to go on TV every week and claim, for a fact, that there's evidence of Collusion, then reporting on it, isn't an opinion. There's either evidence or not.

Those are just two off the top of my head. There are plenty more that can easily be looked up. We've seen numerous stories corrected or pulled, even several journalists, not opinionated TV hosts, get fired because of fake news.
Hands Up Dont Shoot is a good example of fake news.

It never actually happened yet was reported about for weeks/months.
 
Fake news wasn’t even a thing until Trump started using it.

I disagree here, too. Fake news has always been a thing. It just wasn't called 'fake news', nor was it so mainstream.

Also, Trump didn't start using the phrase first. The left, Hillary's campaign and the media did. Trump stole it, turned it around on them and beat them at their own propaganda game.

 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke1
@PhattyJ4UK Manafort had his hearing today on the suit against Mueller saying he had overstepped his authority and the Judge pretty much told his lawyer to **** off for being a complete moron.
 
I disagree here, too. Fake news has always been a thing. It just wasn't called 'fake news', nor was it so mainstream.

Also, Trump didn't start using the phrase first. The left, Hillary's campaign and the media did. Trump stole it, turned it around on them and beat them at their own propaganda game.


The left started using it after their media puppets couldn’t affect the election and people went around them using social media, which is why the leftist-controlled Facebook and twitter started banning and shadow-banning tons of people.

Fox was the only one who would even touch on some of the content of what WikiLeaks exposed.

One of the biggest stories in history, proving how our media is straight up propaganda and the left refused to even read it and the media pundits certainly weren’t going to tell on themselves. But it also exposed how Hillary operated too.

How anyone can listen to these people again after being exposed as a PR firm is beyond me.
 
The judge's ruling doesn't change the fact that Mueller was, in fact, overstepping his authority. He was investigating Manafort’s non election dealings and raiding his home in May, June and July. He wasn't given authority to do so until August. Only a complete moron would fail to realize that May, June and July come before August.
 
The left started using it after their media puppets couldn’t affect the election and people went around them using social media, which is why the leftist-controlled Facebook and twitter started banning and shadow-banning tons of people.

Fox was the only one who would even touch on some of the content of what WikiLeaks exposed.

One of the biggest stories in history, proving how our media is straight up propaganda and the left refused to even read it and the media pundits certainly weren’t going to tell on themselves. But it also exposed how Hillary operated too.

How anyone can listen to these people again after being exposed as a PR firm is beyond me.

Yep. The phrase was brought about to be used to protect them from the email server, WikiLeaks, etc... Trump grabbed the phrase by the pussy and repeated it over and over until he had taken ownership of it, using it to protect himself from the media onslaught.
 
I disagree here, too. Fake news has always been a thing. It just wasn't called 'fake news', nor was it so mainstream.

Also, Trump didn't start using the phrase first. The left, Hillary's campaign and the media did. Trump stole it, turned it around on them and beat them at their own propaganda game.


That’s because it used to be called what it is - making a mistake.

If I post on this board that Tiger Woods won the 2010 masters, that’s not fake news. It’s just me being wrong (or stupid.)

If you want to really label something “fake,” it’s things like Brietbart and Infowars. Pure made up bullshit for profit.
 
That’s because it used to be called what it is - making a mistake.

If I post on this board that Tiger Woods won the 2010 masters, that’s not fake news. It’s just me being wrong (or stupid.)

If you want to really label something “fake,” it’s things like Brietbart and Infowars. Pure made up bullshit for profit.
If the Golf Channel put a graphic up that said Tiger won the 2010 Masters, it would be grossly negligent...if you are supposed to be an expert in your field or report factual happenings, you have a team full of fact checkers and editors then it’s hard to believe it’s just a simple mistake.

If you are some type of business and you continually send out incorrect quotes, fees, info - you’d probably get fired and it wouldn’t be just a simple mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnKBA
That’s because it used to be called what it is - making a mistake.

If I post on this board that Tiger Woods won the 2010 masters, that’s not fake news. It’s just me being wrong (or stupid.)

If you want to really label something “fake,” it’s things like Brietbart and Infowars. Pure made up bullshit for profit.

Being wrong is one thing, intentionally running stories that they know haven’t been verified is quite another.
 
:grimace:

this-is-cnn-600a-li.jpg
 
That’s because it used to be called what it is - making a mistake.

If I post on this board that Tiger Woods won the 2010 masters, that’s not fake news. It’s just me being wrong (or stupid.)

Once or twice, I agree. Constantly, and all negative in the same direction, then not so much. Notice how none of these "mistakes" help Trump, or make him look better? That's not on accident. If they were simply honest mistakes, then the negative/positive aspect would be totally random, not all 100% in the same direction.
 
If you go by the textbooks, what we consider "America" is only a few hundred years old, right?

Experience is the best teacher. We will all die before the USA "figures out" immigration, healthcare, taxes, and gun laws. As a society we haven't even scratched the surface. I'd wager on another Civil War in the next 200 years.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I can't see us giving up the Most Mass Killings in Public Schools title in my lifetime. So sickening.

I hear a bunch of people from Norway want to come here though...

29695027_2085765544974683_416512959729934616_n.jpg
 
Once or twice, I agree. Constantly, and all negative in the same direction, then not so much. Notice how none of these "mistakes" help Trump, or make him look better? That's not on accident. If they were simply honest mistakes, then the negative/positive aspect would be totally random, not all 100% in the same direction.

Fair points Moe (and Bill and Cats as well.)

I guess I’m just not a fan of buzzwords, especially as it relates to politics. Fake News, Libtard, cuck, nazi, alt right, etc. I’m the same at work - every time I hear synergy, quick win, low hanging fruit, deep dive, etc, I want to throw my pc out my window.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WildcatFan1982
Fair points Moe (and Bill and Cats as well.)

I guess I’m just not a fan of buzzwords, especially as it relates to politics. Fake News, Libtard, cuck, nazi, alt right, etc. I’m the same at work - every time I hear synergy, quick win, low hanging fruit, deep dive, etc, I want to throw my pc out my window.

I agree about the catch phrases, and the term fake news.
Someone mentioned “hands up don’t shoot” above. The news ran with it, riots and looting followed, BLM and so on. The media didn’t use hesitation or question it, nor verify it, and we now know it wasn’t true.
Now, compare that to when Trump gave the media a Pulitzer Prize on a platter when he tweeted that Obama wiretapped him. They immediately attacked Trump, called him a liar.
Why wouldn’t a respected news agency do some investigative reporting with that huge nugget?
 
Someone mentioned “hands up don’t shoot” above. The news ran with it, riots and looting followed, BLM and so on. The media didn’t use hesitation or question it, nor verify it, and we now know it wasn’t true.
There were people literally killed over that lie being repeated over and over. Hell, there probably still are some people (cops) getting killed over it. MSM ran with it for months and months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moe_schmoe
Fair points Moe (and Bill and Cats as well.)

I guess I’m just not a fan of buzzwords, especially as it relates to politics. Fake News, Libtard, cuck, nazi, alt right, etc. I’m the same at work - every time I hear synergy, quick win, low hanging fruit, deep dive, etc, I want to throw my pc out my window.

I've just come to realize that there's a common pattern they follow when the 'news' is either fake or grossly misrepresented. You see it a lot regarding the Russia narrative. It's basically a propaganda campaign meant to push a false narrative and warp public opinion.

It's usually when one (NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, NBC ,CBS, etc, etc, etc...) reports something big, then they all piggyback and report the same exact things, sometimes almost word for word, freaking out about it like it's a constitutional crisis (drama and emotion for added affect and emphasis). None of them ever stop to fact check or independently verify the story with their own source(s) or the original source(s). It's more like a game of telephone than it is unbiased reporting.

They let it circulate far and wide, garner tons of attention, get millions of clicks, likes, retweets, reposts, etc.... Hours, sometimes days later, it's corrected or taken down, and only a miniscule amount of people see it compared to those who saw the original 'breaking news'.

The damage is already done at that point. The majority never see the correction, never stop to check for themselves, never know the truth, nor do they even care to do so because it confirms their bias. The fake news is now on it's way to be repeated over and over and over until it becomes fact/reality. Mission complete.
 
Last edited:
I've just come to realize that there's a common pattern they follow when the 'news' is either fake or grossly misrepresented. You see it a lot regarding the Russia narrative. It's basically a propaganda campaign meant to push a false narrative and warp public opinion.

It's usually when one (NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, NBC ,CBS, etc, etc, etc...) reports something big, then they all piggyback and report the same exact things, sometimes almost word for word, freaking out about it like it's a constitutional crisis (drama and emotion for added affect and emphasis). None of them ever stop to fact check or independently verify the story with their own source(s) or the original source(s). It's more like a game of telephone than it is unbiased reporting.

They let it circulate far and wide, garner tons of attention, get millions of clicks, likes, retweets, reposts, etc.... Hours, sometimes days later, it's corrected or taken down, and only a miniscule amount of people see it compared to those who saw the original 'breaking news'.

The damage is already done at that point. The majority never see the correction, never stop to check for themselves, never know the truth, nor do they even care to do so because it confirms their bias. The fake news is now on it's way to be repeated over and over and over until it becomes fact/reality. Mission complete.

Right, and it’s not a fair fight either, because the only mainstream propaganda machine the right has is Fox News. Sure, there are some fringe sites and publications that are in the tank for the right, but they aren’t consumed nearly as much as the full scope of left leaning news.
 
I agree about the catch phrases, and the term fake news.
Someone mentioned “hands up don’t shoot” above. The news ran with it, riots and looting followed, BLM and so on. The media didn’t use hesitation or question it, nor verify it, and we now know it wasn’t true.
Now, compare that to when Trump gave the media a Pulitzer Prize on a platter when he tweeted that Obama wiretapped him. They immediately attacked Trump, called him a liar.
Why wouldn’t a respected news agency do some investigative reporting with that huge nugget?

Jerry Tipton would have blown Adolph Rupp’s corpse to get a scoop like that on UK basketball.
 
I agree about the catch phrases, and the term fake news.
Someone mentioned “hands up don’t shoot” above. The news ran with it, riots and looting followed, BLM and so on. The media didn’t use hesitation or question it, nor verify it, and we now know it wasn’t true.
Now, compare that to when Trump gave the media a Pulitzer Prize on a platter when he tweeted that Obama wiretapped him. They immediately attacked Trump, called him a liar.
Why wouldn’t a respected news agency do some investigative reporting with that huge nugget?

Jerry Tipton would have blown Adolph Rupp’s corpse to get a scoop like that on UK basketball.
 
Jerry Tipton would have blown Adolph Rupp’s corpse to get a scoop like that on UK basketball.

Tipton is a good example of how the media is supposed to work.
He’s a pain in the ass to UK and Calipari, and he’s doing us all a solid. They know if they get to drunk on power and success, and cross a line he’ll call them on it. That keeps them from breaking rules.
Now, look what just happened to Louisville, their media wanted to be part of the action, didn’t hold them to the fire. Treated Jurichand the coaches with kid gloves and they abused their power.
 
Tipton is a good example of how the media is supposed to work.
He’s a pain in the ass to UK and Calipari, and he’s doing us all a solid. They know if they get to drunk on power and success, and cross a line he’ll call them on it. That keeps them from breaking rules.
Now, look what just happened to Louisville, their media wanted to be part of the action, didn’t hold them to the fire. Treated Jurichand the coaches with kid gloves and they abused their power.

Yep. Tipton represents what a journalist should be.
 
@PhattyJ4UK Manafort had his hearing today on the suit against Mueller saying he had overstepped his authority and the Judge pretty much told his lawyer to **** off for being a complete moron.

@Platinumdrgn douche ..you have reading comprehension issues as, in my original post I said that would probably happen. I then said it would go to higher courts.

Please, in all your wonderful wisdom, explain how Mueller has the authority to investigate say.. Anthony weiner being a pedophile..and go.
 
That’s because it used to be called what it is - making a mistake.

If I post on this board that Tiger Woods won the 2010 masters, that’s not fake news. It’s just me being wrong (or stupid.)

If you want to really label something “fake,” it’s things like Brietbart and Infowars. Pure made up bullshit for profit.

Call it fake news...or lack of journalistic integrity.. but we've seen egregious examples of this since trump came about

Not just fake news..but intentionally creating fake bullshit.. editing videos to drum up outrage over koi fish

It's always happened .. the hands up dont shoot is a great example.. just no one had the balls to say it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willy4UK
Unfortunately I predicted last weak that manafort motion was a loser, likely made just to preserve an appealable issue.

I recall when sessions resigned and Mueller was appointed, there was much legal commentary about the unusually vast authority granted to this special prosecutor. That he could basically investigate anything he thought may tie to Russia that was done at basically any point within the last several years (the statute of limitations). It can extend even beyond that if there are obstruction allegations, because that extends the limitations period.

He's going to be around as long as the Dems want him to be. Or until he successfully pokes the bear enough to get trump to fire him (a secondary goal).

I know this - sessions needs fired the milisecond Mueller is done. No doubt in my mind he was part of the "backup plan" that we now see in motion, the ultimate goal of which (removal of the president) was thwarted only by fortuitous discovery of those strzok text messages. Otherwise no doubt they'd have a plan to indict trump
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT