45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Discussion
minimoog said:
jsf said:
I am presenting the case that if the press are going to be taken seriously and present the truth to the public, they must not be open to criticism that will dilute their credibility.
I don't disagree with that but why bring it up now other than to deflect from the slightly more pressing issue of the POTUS have started his term of office with whopping lies?So, about that shameless liar of a president - what chance do we have of an honest term of service from him?
minimoog said:
Efbe said:
Have there been any comments around Trump being a Commie at all?
If not I am quite suprised, with a wife from a Communist country, esentially part of Russia, and now these ties to Putin and golden showers with russia w
es.
It wasn't long ago you couldn't drink a latte in the states without being branded a Commie, so I wold have thought Trump would ave sent the states into a Commie lynch frenzy.
It's one of the most remarkable things about this whole chapter, how the gung-ho commie-pinko-hatin' good ol' boys have rolled over and let their tummies be tickled by a Putin lover. You could of course simply dismiss it as pathetic if it wasn't so dangerous.If not I am quite suprised, with a wife from a Communist country, esentially part of Russia, and now these ties to Putin and golden showers with russia w
es.It wasn't long ago you couldn't drink a latte in the states without being branded a Commie, so I wold have thought Trump would ave sent the states into a Commie lynch frenzy.
a #CommieTrump campaign would have sunk him
Tryke3 said:
Did the pumpkin really say to the CIA to trust him because he is really smart, like intelectually smart 
Yes. The only people I've ever known to say they're 'smart' in fact aren't.Has there been a Prime Minister or President EVER who has said that they were smart. Did Winston Curchill say 'I'm clever' or Abraham Lincoln say 'I'm really intelligent' ??
This whole episode with him in power is going to provide the press and comedians with endless material.
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? How does the below fit in? Who is he waving to?
Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 23 January 08:24
p1stonhead said:
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? Reality has moved on. The BBC,ITV,CNN, even Fox News are now MSM and therefore lying. Only Breitbart, Infowars and random Loon websites can be trusted.
Countdown said:
p1stonhead said:
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? Reality has moved on. The BBC,ITV,CNN, even Fox News are now MSM and therefore lying. Only Breitbart, Infowars and random Loon websites can be trusted.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
p1stonhead said:
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? Reality has moved on. The BBC,ITV,CNN, even Fox News are now MSM and therefore lying. Only Breitbart, Infowars and random Loon websites can be trusted.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
turbobloke said:
^^ how to deploy a losing formula.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
On this particular matter who is telling the truth?The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
It's come to something when you're all at each others throats and name calling when in actuality the facts are inarguable no matter your political leanings.
If the same thing had come out of Pyongyang or 1970s Moscow you'd all be cracking up together because it's flat out ludicrous but because you've let such vitriol build in your beliefs you can't see the flagrant falsehoods for what they are.
They might as well have pitched up and screamed the sky is green. No matter your political persuasion that should be an eyebrow raising event.
If the same thing had come out of Pyongyang or 1970s Moscow you'd all be cracking up together because it's flat out ludicrous but because you've let such vitriol build in your beliefs you can't see the flagrant falsehoods for what they are.
They might as well have pitched up and screamed the sky is green. No matter your political persuasion that should be an eyebrow raising event.
roachcoach said:
It's come to something when you're all at each others throats and name calling when in actuality the facts are inarguable no matter your political leanings.
If the same thing had come out of Pyongyang or 1970s Moscow you'd all be cracking up together because it's flat out ludicrous but because you've let such vitriol build in your beliefs you can't see the flagrant falsehoods for what they are.
They might as well have pitched up and screamed the sky is green. No matter your political persuasion that should be an eyebrow raising event.
That's what I find so astonishing.If the same thing had come out of Pyongyang or 1970s Moscow you'd all be cracking up together because it's flat out ludicrous but because you've let such vitriol build in your beliefs you can't see the flagrant falsehoods for what they are.
They might as well have pitched up and screamed the sky is green. No matter your political persuasion that should be an eyebrow raising event.
Who on earth feels this is defensible?
Fair enough if you want to support Trump, that's doesn't mean he can do no wrong.
The correct response is "sure he's lying about something AND THAT IS NOT GOOD... but let's judge him on his actions..."
Saying "nah, it's all a media conspiracy" marks you out as primo-loon material who should be ignored or laughed at.
Sure there might be a HUGE anti-Trump leaning in the MSM but right now, on THIS issue, there is no possible conspiracy to blame!!!
desolate said:
turbobloke said:
^^ how to deploy a losing formula.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
On this particular matter who is telling the truth?The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
The MSM turnout story was a half-truth, and Pravda worthy on multiple levels.
Result over time: a 6% media approval rating and falling. WaPo, AP, CNN all with major errors in reporting that included retractions, threats of lawsuit, and editorials on realigning their news reporting.
All within one election cycle.
scherzkeks said:
The MLK story was a blatant lie.
The MSM turnout story was a half-truth, and Pravda worthy on multiple levels.
Result over time: a 6% media approval rating and falling. WaPo, AP, CNN all with major errors in reporting that included retractions, threats of lawsuit, and editorials on realigning their news reporting.
All within one election cycle.
So would that be 'nobody' then?The MSM turnout story was a half-truth, and Pravda worthy on multiple levels.
Result over time: a 6% media approval rating and falling. WaPo, AP, CNN all with major errors in reporting that included retractions, threats of lawsuit, and editorials on realigning their news reporting.
All within one election cycle.
Sean Spicer is fighting fire with fire.
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
p1stonhead said:
Pesty said:
What is the point trying to be made? You know thats a Trump fan site yeah? Reality has moved on. The BBC,ITV,CNN, even Fox News are now MSM and therefore lying. Only Breitbart, Infowars and random Loon websites can be trusted.
The only point worthy of note above is that the BBC cannot be trusted on political reporting, that's been known for years.
If you really are so foolish as to think that a source alone determines the veracity of information, there's no wonder you and others like you suck up BBC propaganda.
Single sources rarely exist, oftentimes even BBC bias is repeated elsewhere, The Guardian for example
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff