Elections Republicans say Trump may cut Social Sec. and Medicare if he wins in 2020

[hillelslovak87]

I'll take that as you're sticking with he didn't call for unity or mention guns. What a hack

Oh, you lefties respect the shit out of it; did I say otherwise?

He did mention guns, and a vague call for national unity, sandwiched between multiple instances of him displaying his real feelings on white nationalism and guns, coupled with his actual actions, like doing jack shit pertaining to guns.

Yet again, how this makes the NYT some disrespected leftist shill rag is beyond me.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I wouldn't use that deceitful rag to carpet a birdcage with. LOL at anybody defending this piss poor excuse for "journalism".

What honest publications do you read? Are any of them regarded in more esteem than the NYT?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

He did mention guns, and a vague call for national unity, sandwiched between multiple instances of him displaying his real feelings on white nationalism and guns, coupled with his actual actions, like doing jack shit pertaining to guns.

I see what you mean; he obviously likes these racist:

On Saturday morning, in El Paso, Texas, a wicked man went to a Walmart store, where families were shopping with their loved ones. He shot and murdered 20 people, and injured 26 others, including precious little children.

These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities, an attack upon our nation, and a crime against all of humanity. We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.

These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.

radicalize disturbed minds and perform demented acts.

We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real, bipartisan solutions. We have to do that in a bipartisan manner.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I see what you mean; he obviously likes these racist:

On Saturday morning, in El Paso, Texas, a wicked man went to a Walmart store, where families were shopping with their loved ones. He shot and murdered 20 people, and injured 26 others, including precious little children.

These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities, an attack upon our nation, and a crime against all of humanity. We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.

These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America. Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.

radicalize disturbed minds and perform demented acts.

We can and will stop this evil contagion. In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost by acting as one people. Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided. We must seek real, bipartisan solutions. We have to do that in a bipartisan manner.

And then he sandwiches this canned speech between Trump's honest statements when pressed person to person, and voila.

It's good you've given up on trying to present the NYT as some leftist shill rag, though.

 

[Barteh]

He did mention guns, and a vague call for national unity, sandwiched between multiple instances of him displaying his real feelings on white nationalism and guns, coupled with his actual actions, like doing jack shit pertaining to guns.

Yet again, how this makes the NYT some disrespected leftist shill rag is beyond me.

How is Trump doing jackshit pertaining to guns? He has defended second amendment rights quite succesfully. His narrative on red flag laws is worrying but so far he hasn't done anything unconstitutional. Meanwhile the democrat narrative is extremely worrying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've answered 6 times Jack - This will be my last reply since you keep pretending to be ignorant of what is incorrect:

The story claims that Civil Rights funds are being redirected to investigate discrimination against whites

Fact - they were investigating discrimination against Asains

You haven't answered the question I'm asking. I understand that you're characterizing the story a certain way that was hinted at by the paper that could be misleading (depends how much we trust the administration). But I'm not asking about the interpretation or characterization. I'm asking if you know of any factual claims made in the story that are wrong. It doesn't appear that there are any. It's an important issue if you understand how news gathering works. Your implication was that it was some kind of nefarious scheme to mislead about the administration, while the reality appears to be that they came upon interesting information and then brought in outside sources (defenders and opponents of the moves) to put it into context. Later, fuller context broadened our (that is, America's) understanding of the story. That's an issue that is inherent to good-faith journalism (that is, that later information recontextualizes information in ways that changes the broader interpretation). If you're not able to identify any factual inaccuracies (again, looking at specific factual claims made in the story, as opposed you whether you think the broader "message" is right or wrong), that suggests that the latter interpretation is correct, and your CT version is wrong.

Also, why are you so scared to answer the simple questions I asked? Quote me saying what you said I said or admit that you were lying, and give me what you consider to be a more credible source than the NYT.

 

[hillelslovak87]

How is Trump doing jackshit pertaining to guns? He has defended second amendment rights quite succesfully. His narrative on red flag laws is worrying but so far he hasn't done anything unconstitutional. Meanwhile the democrat narrative is extremely worrying.

He spoke about the urgent need for smart background checks, then within a couple days said we don't need background checks because we already have them. That's what I call doing jack shit.

 

[Andy Capp]

I posted 3 that youve ignored, plus they ran stories about cnn and buzzfeed lies with the 'get me off the hook, but I didnt check' disclaimet of x reported.

So you haven't read a single article posted, but youre sure that Jack shredded them? Pull his nuts out of your mouth and take a deep breath - evidently oxygen isnt making its way to your brain.

lol

 

[Andy Capp]

You haven't answered the question I'm asking. I understand that you're characterizing the story a certain way that was hinted at by the paper that could be misleading (depends how much we trust the administration). But I'm not asking about the interpretation or characterization. I'm asking if you know of any factual claims made in the story that are wrong. It doesn't appear that there are any. It's an important issue if you understand how news gathering works. Your implication was that it was some kind of nefarious scheme to mislead about the administration, while the reality appears to be that they came upon interesting information and then brought in outside sources (defenders and opponents of the moves) to put it into context. Later, fuller context broadened our (that is, America's) understanding of the story. That's an issue that is inherent to good-faith journalism (that is, that later information recontextualizes information in ways that changes the broader interpretation). If you're not able to identify any factual inaccuracies (again, looking at specific factual claims made in the story, as opposed you whether you think the broader "message" is right or wrong), that suggests that the latter interpretation is correct, and your CT version is wrong.

Also, why are you so scared to answer the simple questions I asked? Quote me saying what you said I said or admit that you were lying, and give me what you consider to be a more credible source than the NYT.

I think he can't because he's still trying to figure out what "deemed" means.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

And then he sandwiches this canned speech between Trump's honest statements when pressed person to person, and voila.

It's good you've given up on trying to present the NYT as some leftist shill rag, though.

Are you going to link these honest statements or do I just take you word that he praised white supremacists?

I've posted 7 examples of the times being a leftist shill rag - 8 if you include this "super honest" headline change after lefties got upset over the first one - and 3 directly tied to the Russia CT without listing a single time that they reported that Buzzfeed or CNN had reported x without verifying it themselves.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Dude, you'd be better off trying to reason with a bowl of fruit.
No matter how many times Trump decries racists, or how much evidence to the contrary, the automatons of the TDS troupe will never veer from the program installed in their barren heads.
I have one fool on ignore (something that ultimately goes against my principles, but he's just that obnoxious) and he embodies the NPC trope.

I'm sure that you're right; JVS has told me repeatedly that a story that is unquestionably false was factually correct and CD hasn't even opened 1 single link that I've posted - even though they're the actual NYT articles. I should probably just leave the thread and let those guys have their circle jerk of victory

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You haven't answered the question I'm asking. I understand that you're characterizing the story a certain way that was hinted at by the paper that could be misleading (depends how much we trust the administration). But I'm not asking about the interpretation or characterization. I'm asking if you know of any factual claims made in the story that are wrong. It doesn't appear that there are any. It's an important issue if you understand how news gathering works. Your implication was that it was some kind of nefarious scheme to mislead about the administration, while the reality appears to be that they came upon interesting information and then brought in outside sources (defenders and opponents of the moves) to put it into context. Later, fuller context broadened our (that is, America's) understanding of the story. That's an issue that is inherent to good-faith journalism (that is, that later information recontextualizes information in ways that changes the broader interpretation). If you're not able to identify any factual inaccuracies (again, looking at specific factual claims made in the story, as opposed you whether you think the broader "message" is right or wrong), that suggests that the latter interpretation is correct, and your CT version is wrong.

Also, why are you so scared to answer the simple questions I asked? Quote me saying what you said I said or admit that you were lying, and give me what you consider to be a more credible source than the NYT.

Just to be clear; you're claim is now that good faith journalism allows you to print what ever you assume/want to be the truth and then correct it later.

I don't believe you asked for a more credible news source; unless one of the posters in this thread is your alt acct. - anything to confess Jackie? But if you insist I find Al Jazeera to be a much more credible and fact-based news source.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I think he can't because he's still trying to figure out what "deemed" means.

Deemed means that the shill writer for the NTY decided that the anonymously leaked document meant that Trump was going to use the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ to investigate discrimination against whites.

If they'd have done any actual investigating they would have found out that the DOJ was looking into the case of Asians claiming discrimination against a school. Hey, but why investigate when you can simply write what you DEEM to be the facts?



Is there something about the article or the word "deemed" that you and JVS don't understand? Really my friend pull those out before you suffocate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Just to be clear; you're claim is now that good faith journalism allows you to print what ever you assume/want to be the truth and then correct it later.

Constant lying is not conducive to reasonable discussion.

I don't believe you asked for a more credible news source; unless one of the posters in this thread is your alt acct. - anything to confess Jackie? But if you insist I find Al Jazeera to be a much more credible and fact-based news source.

Huh? I asked you several times, and I commented a couple of times on your weaselly refusal to answer. And LOL.

 

[Andy Capp]

Moving goal posts, mischaracterizing what you say, fallacy after fallacy... who needs it.

Good show. You tell him. He won't listen to Jack or me.

 

[cabal]

He sucks in too many ways at this point

 

[superpunch]

He sucks in too many ways at this point

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but the left has gotten this ridiculous. I'm a UFC fan and I'm 50/50 on whether a democratic administration would force transgenders via the rule of law, instead of at a league's private discretion, into all women's sports. Voting democrat might mean having to see transgender and intersex athletes beat up women in the UFC via force of law. That's insane but it's a real enough threat from the left enough to swing my vote right.

 

[cabal]

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but the left has gotten this ridiculous. I'm a UFC fan and I'm 50/50 on whether a democratic administration would force transgenders via the rule of law, instead of at a league's private discretion, into all women's sports. Voting democrat might mean having to see transgender and intersex athletes beat up women in the UFC via force of law. That's insane but it's a real enough threat from the left enough to swing my vote right.

The left has worked hard for alienated the consensus, wasting the good things done.. Here is more or less the same.

 

[sickc0d3r]

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but the left has gotten this ridiculous. I'm a UFC fan and I'm 50/50 on whether a democratic administration would force transgenders via the rule of law, instead of at a league's private discretion, into all women's sports. Voting democrat might mean having to see transgender and intersex athletes beat up women in the UFC via force of law. That's insane but it's a real enough threat from the left enough to swing my vote right.

Yeah, I mean, trans athlete concerns are super important.
Personally, my dilemma is only one party is offering anything in terms of improving stuff like health care and the environment, while also not sucking off dictators and foreign adversaries and insulting all of our allies. Tough choice for sure.

 

[zebby23]

Let’s not worry. Trump isn’t winning 2020 lol

He is at like 38%. Utter destruction incoming and he will probably quit before the election