Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 3:02 pm

I am glad you cleared that up for me. All those contacts with Trump officials with the Russian during Transition, the hand-holding over sanctions, even the attempt by Kushner to set up a back-channel communication link...it was all a ruse. They meant to get tougher on the Russians!

The Senate is not buying it. They passed a bill to impose tougher sanctions. Tillerson is weak on sanctions. Trump did not affirm Article 5.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/15/533018332 ... -sanctions

There may be bluster but substantively the Trump Administration is weak on NATO and weak on Russian sanctions. Nothing has changed.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 3:31 pm

freeman3 wrote:I am glad you cleared that up for me. All those contacts with Trump officials with the Russian during Transition, the hand-holding over sanctions, even the attempt by Kushner to set up a back-channel communication link...it was all a ruse. They meant to get tougher on the Russians!


The back channel? Really?

The Senate is not buying it. They passed a bill to impose tougher sanctions. Tillerson is weak on sanctions. Trump did not affirm Article 5.


Out of date, or to quote Trump, "Wrong!" http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/06/09 ... =371861717

There may be bluster but substantively the Trump Administration is weak on NATO and weak on Russian sanctions. Nothing has changed.


Obama was so weak that Putin treated him like a school child.

I don't know if Trump will prove to be better, but he could not be more feckless than Obama.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jun 2017, 3:51 pm

I'm not sure what you mean by the question mark.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/p ... emlin.html

Ok, did not see Trump changed his mind. But his failure to do it the first time still is going to make NATO countries unsure of his commitment. First, he said "I am committing the US to Article 5." Well, that indicates that he had not done so before. Then he says essentially that he wants to make sure that NATO countries spend more and have a strong defense force (sort of implying that the US would not be needed) but then he says "but yes, absolutely, I'd be committed to Article 5." Putting his commitment in the subjunctive case is a bit odd. Lukewarm at best. If I'm a NATO country...I am probably assuming that Trump will make his decision at the time it happens. They would be stupid to count on Article 5.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jun 2017, 4:45 pm

freeman3 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by the question mark.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/p ... emlin.html

Ok, did not see Trump changed his mind. But his failure to do it the first time still is going to make NATO countries unsure of his commitment. First, he said "I am committing the US to Article 5." Well, that indicates that he had not done so before. Then he says essentially that he wants to make sure that NATO countries spend more and have a strong defense force (sort of implying that the US would not be needed) but then he says "but yes, absolutely, I'd be committed to Article 5." Putting his commitment in the subjunctive case is a bit odd. Lukewarm at best. If I'm a NATO country...I am probably assuming that Trump will make his decision at the time it happens. They would be stupid to count on Article 5.


Maybe they should think about pulling just a bit more of their own weight. Wait, it seems some are paying attention. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/11/merke ... -spending/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jun 2017, 9:52 am

Like Trump, I'm going to change the topic.

He's an idiot.

Mika Brzezinski is a vacuous, nonsense-spewing member of the liberal elite.

However, attacking her personally in the midst of all that is going on? Just as dumb as can be.

The President needs a guardian ad litem.

That is so thin-skinned and undisciplined in so many ways makes it all the more amazing that he defeated Clinton. No one should have lost to him.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Jun 2017, 10:12 am

Well, he did not just attack her. He essentially called her old, dumb, crazy, and vain. He attacked her in every sensitive spot that a woman has. All because she is a women who had the audacity to question him. Trump is a misogynist and a national embarrassment. It's not how Hillary could fail to beat him; it's how voters failed to see how bad he would be.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jun 2017, 10:25 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, he did not just attack her. He essentially called her old, dumb, crazy, and vain. He attacked her in every sensitive spot that a woman has. All because she is a women who had the audacity to question him. Trump is a misogynist and a national embarrassment. It's not how Hillary could fail to beat him; it's how voters failed to see how bad he would be.


No, I think the voters knew.

I don't think they cared . . . because of the alternative.

And, I don't know if it's fair to limit him to misogyny. That's not properly respectful to men--or children.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 8:02 am

Freeman

Have you guys looked at the facts of the case?


Yes. This one in particular. Three men, calling themselves reporters, "resigned" from CNN for having been caught pushing a false narrative. Legit reporters don't do that. Another fact, today, they no longer work at CNN. That's the take away fact worth focusing on. Not some tortured explanation as to why not one, not two, but three of their top reporters stepped down. Which, by the way, is a nice way of saying, they were fired.

Fate, somewhere in your posts you mentioned the scandal involving the Berndog's wife. I've yet to wrap my arms around this news but it is much more than disappointing if true.

Forgot one last fact, CNN apologized to Scaramucci. Curious. Why apologize? That seems to suggest presuppositions, namely, that a wrong was committed and that such a wrong is now regretted.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 8:35 am

Again, Dags you have not bothered to look at the facts of the case. They were not fired for pushing a false narrative, as nothing in their story has been shown to be untrue. They were fired for not following guidelines.

If one is going to approach any kind of truth...then a person can't just take surface understandings and intepret them to fit into ideological cubbyholes. You have me a strong bias against the mainstream media and you interpreted that story in a way that fits your belief system. But your interpretation is wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... story.html

These attacks by Trump and right-wing conservatives on mainstream media sources as being fake media are troubling. The mainstream media makes mistakes, their reporters have biases as all human beings do, but in the main they mostly get it right. And it cuts at the very notion of a democracy where the people rely on the media to report accurately on the government.

If you're going to make the case that mainstream media is seriously biased to the point of not being able to trust them, then at the very least be fair about your appraisal. Which means digging into things and making sure your criticisms are accurate.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 9:14 am

Freeman

but in the main they mostly get it right.


Not even close. This is what you fail to grasp.

When it comes to American media there are two Americas Freeman. This cannot be emphasized enough. I can watch Fox news one minute and receive a perspective on a particular topic that is absolutely conservative and then switch to CNN or MSNBC and get the exact opposite liberal view. Very rarely can you happen upon a media outlet that is balanced and objective. Although I do believe that there are a few who strive to be. But very few and very under resourced.

Why can't you follow your own reasoning through to a logical conclusion?

They were fired for not following guidelines.


Yes, guidelines that are put in place in order to ensure the highest standards and best practices of reporting. In other words, guidelines that get us as close to a truthful perspective that is possible given all the variables involved in a particular story.

These men were not given a warning Freeman. They were not given a few days off or docked in pay. They were fired or if you insist, they resigned.

What's truly troubling is you cherry picking what you need to be true and ignoring the gravity of a situation such as this one. CNN fired 3 of their reporters. They no longer work there. They are no longer representing CNN.

If you'd like me to be naiive and believe that the reason for this move was due to a technicality or simple guideline not being followed to the letter, that's not going to happen. Newsroom look the other way on poorly reported stories and poorly edited stories all the time. CNN is attempting to clean up its act. At least I hope they are. Just like Fox is attempting to appear above board in getting rid of O'Reilly for his stupidity.

American media is no longer trusted by Americans Freeman. Sorry but it's true. And American media are beginning to understand this on some levels. Both sides know that this is the new modus operandi and it ain't going away anytime soon.

The result? Two Americas. One liberal and one conservative. The best they can hope for is to win over anyone who resembles a swing voter. And how do you do that? By crossing your Ts and dotting your I s on every story you lead with.

We are a country of extremes Freeman. There is very little ground for anyone looking for a Via Media.

Your take on what happened at CNN is naiive at best. This was more than a rookie technicality not being followed. You seem to be relegating the CNN apology to the sidelines as if it were meaningless.

"We apologize for missing a technicality in our checks and balances format." No. If the story were true, there would be no apology, and everyone would keep their job.

The apology was for bringing about injury to another as a result of poor reporting. Stop trivializing CNN's executive action as if it were no more than a technicality.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2017, 10:08 am

This seems a reasonable place to say this: I hate the pettiness of Trump. It's pathetic.

Every President is a narcissist to some extent. That said, this guy takes it to a new low. His comments about Mike Brzezinski were reprehensible.

Now, that said, watching her and her honey talk about Trump is impossible. They do nothing but attack him personally. So, he responded.

He is MORE wrong because he's the President.

However, they are losers.

I watched CNN earlier this week for an hour. It was about 35 minutes of Trump-bashing, 20 minutes of commercials, and 5 minutes of "other." I can't stand it any more than I can abide an hour of Hannity.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 10:32 am

This all sounds very reasonable...but you don't have evidence to support your interpretation, Dags. If we're going to get closer to truth--meaning what's in our heads corresponding to reality--then we need reasonable ways of establishing truth. Whatever good religion does in the world it is not helpful in this regard because its truths are not based on anything human beings can establish. Once you decide that can be done...then that kind of thinking can be applied to anything. We see that in widespread doubt about evolution and climate change . You have to certain criteria to establish truth. What is the proposition you are seeking to prove? What is the evidence you have to prove the proposition? How reliable is the evidence in support of the proposition? If sources are relied upon, how reliables are the sources? What is the evidence against the proposition? How reliable is the evidence against the proposition? How reliable are the sources that furnish evidence against the proposition? Given all of the evidence, which is the most reasonable interpretation--p or not p?

You may be right here--but how do you know you are right? I looked at Breitbarts news reporting--and they claim to have souces say the CNN article was inaccurate. And if you cited that article in support of your position that would be fine. And what may be true is that CNN does not know it is wrong but Breitbart questioned the story...and it turns out that CNN did not do properly vette that story. So they got scared and decided to fire some people as a means of showing their integrity which is under constant attack from an Administration that cares little for the truth.

You certainly do not have evidence that CNN was putting forth a false narrative, as if they were intentionally doing false stories about Trump.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 3:31 pm

Freeman, you and I are miles apart.

I'm sorry but I couldn't follow your first paragraph. You wrote it midday so I can't blame 4:20. You'll have to try me again or move your points over to another thread that examines epistemology.

The DNC fed narrative after narrative to the New York Times about Bernie Sanders in an effort to see to it Clinton would beat him in the primary. This is a fact. Those narratives were not true but they were published, another fact. I'll stop short of saying they were also paid for. That is not a fact, only a suspicion of mine. In any case, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stepped down once this behavior was found out...another fact.

Conclusion: If this is how the liberal media treats a fellow liberal, why wouldn't they do the same or worse to an opponent? Especially a meglomaniac who they view as potentially unstable?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Jul 2017, 6:40 pm

There will be crazies...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... sts-215344
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 20 Jul 2017, 8:27 pm

Don't get it. The link is busted.