Jump to content

Horn Dog

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    3651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Horn Dog

  1. 6 hours ago, Mole said:

    They should do that and it would be progress and would objectively demonstrate how terrible he is. He's bad enough without the bump. Just report his words honestly and with context. Let him discredit himself. Unfortunately, they don't do that or when they do, they remove the necessary context and fill in their own twisted context.

    The idea that claiming the media aren't covering him objectively is somehow an endorsement or an excuse for him (not necessarily coming from the quoted post, but it's in this thread) just isn't honest. It's possible for Trump to be terrible (he is really bad) and the media to be dishonest about him (they're lying to us about how bad he is).

    As far as an example of Trump's terribleness being exaggerated, my recent goto is the "animals" quote a few weeks back. C-SPAN, typically a bastion of objectivity tweeted out an out of context quote which was then spun by everyone as Trump calling all brown people, or at least all those crossing the border "animals." On this board, there was a tweet from Jesuit priest who described this language as reminiscent of the words of those who perpetuate genocide. This priest was seen as a hero. The problem is that Trump didn't actually say what everyone claimed he was saying. If you go and watch the context of the discussion (also covered by C-SPAN), he was clearly talking about MS-13 members when he used the "animals" line. If you want to argue that it's wrong to call even the worst among us "animals," I'm right with you, but you need to honestly report his words. Arguing for the inherent dignity of murders is far different than arguing for the dignity of everyone crossing the border. We went from Trump saying something that some (such as myself) would find terrible and turned it into a step towards genocide. Even C-SPAN had a hand in it by removing the quote from context. 

    There was some pushback on this and so something of a correction was issued, but the dishonest damage was done. It isn't that hard to report his words honestly and taking one line out of context and filling in an entirely different context is more or less lying. That Trump may have said some gnarly racial things in the past doesn't justify lying about this one.

    Responding to this with examples of how Trump is worse doesn't justify the dishonesty. Calling this "both sidism" doesn't justify the dishonesty. A lie is a lie even with your team is saying it.

    Thank you for responding with a concrete example.  I think you have a valid point in this case, however there are a few things that need to be pointed out.

    1.  CSPAN sent out a tweet quoting the president’s words.  Yes, I agree the quote is out of context but it requires quite a bit of explaination to understand the full context and that context can be easily missed.  I had to watch that video twice and pay really close attention to see what you were trying to say, and although I agree with you now, I can see how it could easily be missed in real time.

    2.  The real issue seems to be that others picked up this tweet and started new tweets with their commentary.  This was not a news story, but rather a tweet that got distorted as it was repeated.  I don’t know that this is really an example of the MSN running a false news story, but rather an example of how social media and specifically Twiiter have made it so that anyone can now be a “journalist”, and how “news” loses context as it is passed around without oversight.  This was not as much an issue previous presidents had to contend with and will likely get worse as technology advances.

    3.  Trump speaks like a fucking moron and its very very difficult to keep correct context with what he is saying.  He goes off on tangents.  He changes subject matter mid sentence.  He is asked about one subject and seamlessly addresses another.  It is not necessarily dishonesty to get mixed up on full context when reporting his quotes because it is often the case that context is unclear. It doesn’t help that he lies constantly, denies previous statements, and changes context afterwards.  It seems to me a nearly impossible task to report on Trump and provide true correct context in a real time basis and not mess up occasionally.  

    In short I think the large large majority of MSM journalists are doing the best the can with a very tough subject and the idea that there is an active attempt to report him in a dishonest way is highly overstated.

  2. 18 minutes ago, Mole said:

     

    Likewise, Trump is terrible, but the media coverage of him hasn't been honest about his terribleness. Rather than simply report him, there's a need to exaggerate to the point of dishonesty. So if someone says how terrible Trump is, that's an accurate statement. If someone discusses the dishonesty of the media towards him (as Trump likes to do), that's also an accurate statement.

    Can you give some specific examples of MSM coverage of Trump that is “exaggerated to the point of dishonesty”.  News is a business so stories are often sensentionalized for attention, but that is hardly a new thing.  Not errors that were quickly corrected, opinion/commentary pieces, or stories in obscure corners of the internet, but true mainstream  journalistic pieces that are blatantly false or out of the normal range for coverage of national leaders.   Not saying false MSM stories don’t exist but it’s really hard to judge the validity of this assertion  without concrete examples.  I don’t follow it real close, but the times I have seen Trump complain of “dishonest coverage” it is simply coverage of true events that he doesn’t want covered. 

  3. 9 hours ago, Pods said:

    It's going to be Kavanaugh. He's the biggest proponent of executive power. He'll vote that Trump can't be investigated. 

     

    Yup Kananaugh, the philosophical purist who once helped lead the Clinton impeachment over a BJ, and who now opposes any presidential investigations will be the pick.  In other news, the hens have elected the fox as their new head of security.  

  4. 1 hour ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

     

    Also, forcing someone to buy insurance or face a mandatory penalty is an invasion of liberty. So I think you have that a bit twisted, as it has nothing to do with cost of premiums and everything to do with the government forcing you to buy a product or face a penalty. 

    I would agree with this if when the person who refuses to buy insurance is given no care and allowed to die when he gets in a car wreck or has a heart attack and needs said insurance.  Instead, he gets the care he would have had with or without insurance and now that 200k bill is passed on to me via higher premiums or higher taxes.  So now my individual freedom is being infringed because I have to pay for individuals bad decisions....but I guess this kind of welfare is ok.  

    • Like 2
  5. 4 hours ago, swraith said:

    So I guess the rumors of her resignation never panned out. Anybody putting odds on how long her tenure lasts as WH press secretary ?

    If you read the original story, the prediction is that she will resign by years end, so not fake news yet.

     

    I am not generally in favor or kicking people out of public businesses for anything less than blatant violations of social norms, however if the GOP is going to fight for the right to exclude gays, and others from public businesses, then I give zero shits if they are excluded for being assholes.  

    • Like 1
  6. Dear trumpkin,

    So you keep claiming the policy of mentally abusing toddlers was the same under Obama, which we all know is gas lighting BS, but lets say it was.  Why weren’t you outraged then?  I don’t remember any threads being started on here about Obama abusing toddlers.    Instead I remember outrage about a pizza parlor and some emails, but you had a real example of Obama abusing toddlers and you just sat on that?  Also, the republican congress knew of real crimes against humanity being performed by the O administration and no hearings or fanning moral outrage by the party of precious family values and value of life?  You are only now upset at Obama once we noticed a inhumane policy being  continued (according to you) by DOTARD?  You trumpkins made a scandle out of a tan suit, arugula, and some mustard but you were saving this in your back pocket for a later date??  Really?  

    • Like 1
  7. 2 hours ago, TSipper said:

    I hope pictures keep getting out in the media, drive the point home to anybody looking to come to this country that they are not welcome and that they should stay home after their husband beats the hell out of them. Take it up with the local police, don't bring that shit here.

    Fuck yea TSip!  You know what will really end this immigration shit, lets slit those brown baby’s throats right there at the border.  Women running from your abusive husband or gang rape?   We can line up all those brown ladies and have ICE beat the shit out of them right there!  Take that you brown crying fuckers!  In fact...lets gas them!  Bodies piles up high to make a big beautiful wall!  MAGA! 

  8. 8 hours ago, formermav43 said:

    Money changers, not tax collectors. And as for rebellion to the law...no. Quite the contrary.

     

    *This is not an endorsement of hijacking Scripture like Sessions/Sanders. It’s just this is wrong too.

    I admit I am no biblical scholar so I admit my initial statement is not 100% accurate but neither is it completely wrong.  As with most things biblical, Jesus was contradictory when it came to this issue.  Yes he made statements that encouraged obeying man’s laws, but he also spoke of higher law and God’s law.  Most importantly, he and his followers certainly were not adverse to breaking laws and disobeying legal authorities if they felt they needed to.. pretty sure thats how he ended up on going that cross.  Furthermore,  In it’s infancy,  Christianity was against the law in some places, and from my recollection, the early followers of Christianity were protrayed as heroic, not as criminals in the bible.  The larger point is that pointing at the Bible, and saying that it’s overwhelming message is that one must obey laws, even if immoral or unjust, is incorrect. 

    • Like 1
  9. 57 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    You guys sure get mighty sensitive when somebody points out that your Betito is doing typical democrat politician shit with his "omg somebody think of the children" nonsense. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 2
  10. But Giuliani’s comments went beyond ......

    “I respect all human beings. I even have to respect, you know, criminals”. “But I’m sorry, I don’t respect a porn star the way I respect a career woman, or a woman of substance, or a woman who has great respect for herself as a woman, and as a person. And isn’t going to sell her body for sexual exploitation. “She has no reputation. If you’re going to sell your body for money, you just don’t have a reputation.”

     

    So now they are going after Melania...  sad!

    • Like 3
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...