45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 8)

[Jimbeaux]

Byker28i said:

Jimbeaux said:

No; your post specifically implied that the Ukrainians were going up against the Russians under armed due to the non-delivered weapons; a person in a better position to know contradicted that. BTW, when the Ukrainians begged for weapons after the Russian invasion and Obama sent them blankets, what was your response? Where are the volumes?

Russian forces are again probing in Donbas
Reports that they are using heavy weapons banned in the Minsk agreement
Trump has delayed a weapons deal to Ukraine, including $10m in ammo.

Whats not true there?

As for Obama and blankets, thats not strictly true either although I can understand why you believe that as trump said it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/25/...

Trump did approve sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine at the end of 2017. Do you think thats why he was upset when the President changed and wouldn't provide him manufactured dirt on Biden?

Did you read the Ukraininan link? Weapons and ammo on order would have minimal effect. You speak as if it is a box of nukes.

[Jimbeaux]

Seventy said:

Jimbeaux said:

No; your post specifically implied that the Ukrainians were going up against the Russians under armed due to the non-delivered weapons; a person in a better position to know contradicted that. BTW, when the Ukrainians begged for weapons after the Russian invasion and Obama sent them blankets, what was your response? Where are the volumes?

Jim, your disingenousness is, quite frankly, astonishing.
Obama sent far more than blankets - he may or may not have sent javelins due to the perceived state of the Ukrainian military, that is open to debate in far higher channels than here - and you well know it.
And if you don't then you shouldn't be spouting it.
And the irony of Trump quoting McCain is, I'm sure, lost on you.

"that is open to debate in far higher channels than here - and you well know it."
Your above quote applies as well to what you are supporting as fact.
In response to your opening sentence; your Myopic view is, quite frankly, astonishing.

[Byker28i]

Jimbeaux said:

Did you read the Ukraininan link? Weapons and ammo on order would have minimal effect. You speak as if it is a box of nukes.

Yup answered at 15:03 with another opinion from Military times that
"Any delay in arms sales has a deleterious effect on Ukraine’s fight."

Apologies, busy so will have to dip out

[Jimbeaux]

It appears that contrary information, when presented, is treated to the (conceptual examples to follow)"That is not reliable"; "That is a lie"; "That opinion does not matter because Fox", etc & etc.

The groupthink (small group) here has resulted in what appears to be irreversible Myopia in this thread.

The BBC could make a miniseries off of this. "The Myopians"-Volume 8".

[Seventy]

Jimbeaux said:

"that is open to debate in far higher channels than here - and you well know it."
Your above quote applies as well to what you are supporting as fact.
In response to your opening sentence; your Myopic view is, quite frankly, astonishing.

You have completely failed to interpret the post.
As usual.

[Jimbeaux]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You meant the one-sided one?

[Jimbeaux]

Seventy said:

Jimbeaux said:

"that is open to debate in far higher channels than here - and you well know it."
Your above quote applies as well to what you are supporting as fact.
In response to your opening sentence; your Myopic view is, quite frankly, astonishing.

You have completely failed to interpret the post.
As usual.

So sorry to fall beneath your literary standards.

[Jimbeaux]

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

Partial excerpts:

"Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts'.

"the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:
The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role".

"The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker".

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 18th February 16:16

[Al Gorithum]

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

I think you may find that this is what most people find objectionable about Trump.

From the article:
"The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nations history has the county had a president with so little fidelity with the facts, so little so little appreciation for the dignity of the office, and so little understanding of the underpinning of democracy"

Yet here we are. People trying to defend him...

[Jimbeaux]

Al Gorithum said:

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

I think you may find that this is what most people find objectionable about Trump.

From the article:
"The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nations history has the county had a president with so little fidelity with the facts, so little so little appreciation for the dignity of the office, and so little understanding of the underpinning of democracy"

Yet here we are. People trying to defend him...

Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?

[andyeds1234]

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

An opinion piece, taken from a right wing tabloid...hmm....

The Harvard report states that coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly negative, apart from Fox, whose coverage was much more positive.

And in other news, Hitler has mainly been negatively reported on, with the exception of certain choice publications...

[walm]

Byker28i said:

Would you like to validate the figures? fill your boots

I am sure the figures are right - but it isn't a like-for-like comparison so it doesn't make sense.

[walm]

Byker28i said:

I suspect figures aren't available for 2019 yet but if it bothers you so much, go find the figures

There is nothing wrong with the figures.
They need to be a like-for-like comparison.

Say you drove 30,000 miles in one time period.
Then 50,000 miles in another,

Does that mean you are driving more or less?

"Check my odometer" isn't a valid answer.

[Jimbeaux]

andyeds1234 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Here is a link referencing the Harvard Kennedy School on media bias. They are by no means a right leaning institution. They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased. You will be pained to know that Harvard found only Fox offered a near equal positive/negative view.
In case you can't be bothered to read it all, I draw your attention to paragraph 5 as well as the last three.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harv...

An opinion piece, taken from a right wing tabloid...hmm....

The Harvard report states that coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly negative, apart from Fox, whose coverage was much more positive.

And in other news, Hitler has mainly been negatively reported on, with the exception of certain choice publications...

You are being misleading. The paper references the Harvard study, far from right leaning. Furthermore, Fox has a 58% negative / 42% positive. Pretty balanced compared to the other sources listed in the Harvard study. Nice try at a spin though; you fit right in here.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Jimbeaux said:

They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased.
Partial excerpts:

Accusations of bias aside,

So is it a fact they proved or an accusation ?

[walm]

Jimbeaux said:

Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?

Your straw man is transparent.

No one is arguing that the media isn't biased.
You just came up with that on your own.
Everyone accepts the media is biased.

Why don't you come up with evidence to support actual arguments here, not ones you made up.

[Seventy]

Jimbeaux said:

Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?

Without commentating on media bias, as it is very subjective, it is no surprise that coverage of Trump in his first 100 days was negative.
The fact is he didn't do too much positive. The fact that Fox had him in negative territory should tell you everything you need to know - you know, the laughably biased Fox.
Andy has it right.

[Jimbeaux]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

Jimbeaux said:

They have hits on Trump in the piece but drive home the fact that the media is biased.
Partial excerpts:

Accusations of bias aside,

So is it a fact they proved or an accusation ?

They stated that beside the accusations it is quite clear to the study that the facts are not presented in an unbiased manner by the media. Did you read the whole thing?

[Jimbeaux]

walm said:

Jimbeaux said:

Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?

Your straw man is transparent.

No one is arguing that the media isn't biased.
You just came up with that on your own.
Everyone accepts the media is biased.

Why don't you come up with evidence to support actual arguments here, not ones you made up.

God give me strength. My point is that if facts are overwhelming reported in a manner biased against Trump, as the Harvard study indicated, it is not logical to assume that people are reaching erroneous conclusions due to erroneous or unethical reporting.

[Al Gorithum]

Jimbeaux said:

Do you have a comment regarding the main topic of the Harvard study, that the media are biased? Are you just going to omit the heart of the main topic?

Yes Sir. Of course the media is biased. Are you surprised?

Personally I don't watch any of the US "news" agencies (for the above reason). I watch/listen to Trump, then watch/listen to what he says/does, ditto for people more informed/better educated/more rational/more truthful/successful that he is, verify sources if needed then come to the conclusions that I've mentioned previously.

I'm open minded enough to change my mind I do hope that he does something worthy of merit that counteracts the nefariousness.

Please allow me to ask you a question that merits a genuine answer: How would you feel if it was proven (post presidency - he can't be indicted while in office) that Trump is a Russian asset (after all, the signs are there if you care to look)? Would this bother you at all? I'm not having a dig, just genuinely interested to get a better understanding.