Russians have compromising Trump sex tape and financial info

Sorry to disappoint you but I agree completely with the bolded.

Edit: Also, it's pretty clear to me that many that identify as left-leaning or liberal here agree that the DNC made huge mistakes and Clinton was a terrible candidate. We've been saying this over and over again. But it gets tiring being told "Get over it! Clinton lost!" in nearly every single argument, even ones that have little to do with her anymore like this thread. This thread has nothing to do with Clinton or the DNC. This is about Trump and the validity of these reports.

 

You are right in suggesting that politics are cyclical, of course it's not "winner take all" and Obama would have been smart to understand that when he took office with majorities in the house and senate, instead he pushed his own agenda and that agenda proved to be a very unpopular one which led to him losing the house 2 years after taking office and then losing the senate after that.

It's true that the Republicans could squander control like the Democrats did if they push unpopular and frankly stupid legislation and blow all of their political capital in the first 2 years. Personally I don't think they'll make that mistake, but we'll see.

If the agenda they push is successful and popular, then they'll control everything for quite some time to come, if it is as bad as Obama and the Democrats when they took power, they'll meet the same fate of losing all power.

 

No kidding. I don't understand why people keep making up arguments that don't really apply to people.

 

We can agree on that then, I think. It's pretty clear that the ruling party has to be careful with what they spend their political capital on.

 

Oh wow. You accuse me of racism and you're gonna cop-out by not saying your stance on border control. Classic JayGoogle. Won't hold to his statements.

But I already clarified it. You insisted on arguing semantics after that.

What Tillerson said about that is irrelevant. We were talking about facts during the revolt and you not knowing those facts. You're making another fallacious argument.

Yeah - it's lines on paper. Very often, it's a bunch of fluff (like anyone knows what Apple's mission statement is). It's like someone believing everything from a press release.

I talked about the context and history of the EU that you were ignorant about.

Spoiler

 

Lol accuse? Accuse? White Genocide guy? "Guess it's not that hard to find black people acting like criminals, huh?" guy? You just won't stand up and be proud of your racism. You asked if I was against border control and I said no. Then you asked a broader question about what I would do with illegal immigrants and border control. I HONESTLY answered you that I didn't have the magic solution about that. Honestly, I don't understand how much clearer I could be.

Yes, because it amused me.

Lol yeah, sure it is. Hey, make sure you tell Marco Rubio that as well too. YOU were talking about the revolt. I'm talking about YOU being a blind Trump cultist.

And even then you forgot about half of its history. Lines on paper...lol everything is lines on paper then. The constitution is just 'lines on paper' using that logic.

Ooh, a pepe! So original!

 

You have more patience than I. I don't think Dei approaches reality from the same place as most folks. I could say that about not approaching reality from the same place and have it be a compliment because they approach it from an idealistic great place that I'd want to inhabit.

With Dei, he approaches it from a dark, horrible place, that ignores the contributions of people deserving of praise and accolades because of their race.

So it's very hard from me to have a discussion with him because of our different takes on reality.

 

Oh look. Our resident white supremacist stormfront douchebag STILL believes he isn't a racist piece of ****.

L O L.

 

Yes, it's a cop-out. You didn't answer it clearly by a longshot - you said "Nope. I'm anti-huge stupid wall" which was ambiguous. That's why I asked you to put it into really clear terms - which you refuse to answer which usually gives reason to suspect that the answer is incriminating.

Btw, I stand by those two statements, in the context they were said.

Arguing semantics is what idiots who have no argument do. I'm glad you're amused by that.

YOU changed the discussion after YOU replied to my comment about you not knowing anything about the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I'm talking about company mission statements. Rarely do they matter when talking about political history. You saying you discussed the purpose of the EU by simply reading off something for press release is idiot level historical accounting.

He so ****ing missed that joke.

 

As many folks that won the election anyway. But I do think JayGoogle is deliberately being an idiot to drown the possibility of any real, honest discussion. It's disinformation 101. The more he does it the more he makes a case that he isn't to be taken seriously though.

 

Meh

 

Stormfront

 

She got almost the same number of votes as obama. She had 3 million more votes than trump. She is closer to the center than the left. She lost because she took a few states for granted why she shouldn't have.

It kind of shocks my Romney lost and trump won. I think Romney would have made a good president.

 

Yeah, you're definitely right about him coming at the world with a different outlook. It's not just a conservative outlook but his is something far more dangerous and primal. I actually refrain from name calling and insults with most here outside of him because I respect their opinions even if I disagree with them. Many of Dei's views I really don't respect.

 

a world where you have to defend against every claim is a scary place. it used to be that extraordinary evidence required extraordinary proof but the mainstream media seem to forgotten their principles and only care about viewers and hits now.

Let's look at common principles of journalism and where they stand on this issue.

Truth and Accuracy - Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

The report is full of inaccuracies and is not verified.

Independence - Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

This is a colossal failure with CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Breitbart, HuffPost, etc... Some of these orgs were specifically created to be on behalf of special interests.

Fairness and Impartiality - Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

See previous point, there is no fairness and impartiality in cable news and online "news" orgs. Doesn't exist.

Humanity - Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.

This one might be the worst. If it bleeds it leads is alive and well in cable news and the 24/7 instant news aggregators wherever they are. Serial killers shown on TV, bomb explosions repeated thousands of times, grieving families interviewed, race baiting, fear tactics, etc...

Accountability - A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

This is hit or miss. The remaining reputable old guard like network news and traditional newspapers do a decent job but the newer organizations have almost no accountability unless they get sued out of business like gawker did.

Ignoring the perpetrators is the only chance we have at reducing the issue but it's probably too late.

 

Rebuttal on my earlier post already. Your opinion on people is hardly any worth coming from your backsliding ass.

 

Meh. But at least better than Obama.

 

It's really not that ambiguous. "Are you against border control?" you asked. I replied "No. I'm against the wall." clearly this should be read as "No, I'm not against immigration control but I'm against what is being proposed to control it."

I'm just not sure how I could dumb down my response any further. I thought a simple "Nope." would suffice.

It wasn't semantics, you claimed you didn't mention the EU or UN and so I reminded you that you did.

Nah, I never did. I always talked about you blindly believing in Russia because that's what you Trump cultists do. Obviously the stance on Russia is one that is unique among them when it comes to russia. Not even the GOP has fallen in line with it.

Too bad the EU isn't a company. Actually, I didn't read it off a press release but the words of one of its founders, lul...do more research about it. You also skipped over a large part of its founding, but you can go back to that thread and find out where you made your error.

True, I don't really care much about Trump Cultists inside jokes.

 

Says the racist white genocide guy that can't stand by his racism.

 

Because she's white! Ding ding ding.