Can any trump supporters not named RL or Ipaman describe why they think this is the right and effective way for the POTUS to behave? Even Texxx, in his black heart of hearts couldn't find this to be a good thing when your president is so utterly clueless and an obvious buffoon. Can you imagine the wailing in the right wing bubble of AM radio, FOX and Breitbart/info wars were this president Obama behaving like this? I expect hypocrisy in politics, truly both sides are guilty of it to one degree or another, but this is off the charts and not just related to this instance. There is not a single way for the polarized camps of progressive and conservative to ever agree on anything, we are truly in new and uncharted waters in this Union of States. Have we ever been more apart since 1860? Vietnam maybe?
Interested to understand why the intelligence personnel are obviously partisan. I understand that they are leaking information that is damaging to Trump. It could be motivated by a partisan aversion to Trump's political ideology, either as lone wolves or as part of a cabal led by Obama. But it could also be motivated by a genuine fear that the most powerful man on earth has compromised himself with a foreign power. Both ideas probably result in leaks.
I wish you would post this request to the feedback forum for Clutch and Jeff to look at but I don't think they take what goes on in the D+D seriously. I try to not get involved in most of these threads but this really goes above and beyond most of what is said here. This crosses the border of a free press and exchange of ideas into state controlled and fascist control over the media. It's one thing to ban websites that are created by people in these random counties who make up articles in order to drive up hits and money via Facebook. Let's say the bias exists, why is that bad? A free press can have an opinion as long as they are genuinely trying to report the truth. When Trump and Spicer say that the leaks in the government are real, it heavily implies that many of these stories that are typically reported on the washington post, ny times and CNN are true. That being said, I find it concerning that you don't include Fox News on that list when they have a very clear conservative bias. Again, I think that's fine but if you have an issue with bias but don't cite Fox then it calls into question your true motives with censoring the press here. I don't have a problem with you being conservative. Just stick to your guns and be comfortable with that and don't feel like you have to censor sorties that you don't like or agree with so you can better make your point. I made my point and I'm not going to argue about it.
Biased media wrongly shapes the perception of people, which leads to a host of problems. Just look at how sites like HuffPo and Daily Kos convinced everybody of the police brutality against black people, despite many of the incidents resulting in favorable verdicts for the police. These websites "roused the rabble" and policemen got killed over it (e.g., NYPD officers Liu and Ramos). Remember "hands up - don't shoot" that incited so much violence in Ferguson, MO? That was based on a lie by Dorian Johnson, the witness at the site who was proven to have lied about it. The biased media also polarizes people today, as they can stay in their echo chambers and be convinced they're right, when often times they are not. This leads to a warping of reality, and it divides the people unnecessarily. However, this is what happens when advertising money dictates how you run your website or newspaper.
What about a completely biased poster? I know we can put people like you on Ignore, but rather than do that, could you just put a disclaimer- in case we have any new CF members- whenever you include an obviously biased post- that you are coming from a place of extreme bias? Maybe, in your Signature, you could include something like this: Please understand that any post I make is completely from an extremely partisan conservative right wing point of view. The opinions I express do not reflect the opinions of Clutch, Jeff, or the large majority of the posters on this board. That would help make your unreadable posts that much more readable. Thank you.
Sorry, I know I said I would not respond but... which media outlets do you feel like are impartial enough to deserve to have their news shared on this site? Specific sites.
... appears the Senate is saying, "Put up or shut up"? Best part... bi-partisan. U.S. senators ask government for proof Obama wiretapped Trump And of course: Perhaps the best part: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16F2AQ?il=0
If this doesn't take the cake... .This guy will say anything. So much for becoming presidential. He's a buffoon.
I know you deleted this and put in a "never mind" instead, but it's worth replying to. You said "never mind," but clearly that deleted post is what you believe. I find it incredible that you believe made up nonsense from a far-right website that is well known, and well known to countless sources, as being a mass producer of "fake news" or "alternative facts." You believe them, but you don't believe 16 United States intelligence agencies and the FBI that the Russians attempted to influence the election in favor of Trump. You also don't believe the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR... one could go on citing well respected (except by those who "follow" Breitbart, apparently, who only believe Breitbart, Bannon, and Trump) news sources, yet you do respect Bannon, you respect his "Breitbart News," and you respect Trump. Trump, Bannon, and Breitbart are all proven sources of "fake news" and "alternative facts." I don't get it. Is it like being part of a fraternity? You defend it/them, regardless of how stupid and/or dishonest they are? And the history of Trump, Bannon, and Breitbart "News," and their incredible numbers of outright lies, is very well documented. Seriously, how can you be so gullible? I don't doubt that you are intelligent, etc., but in defending what those 3 sources are saying, regardless of what they say, puts that into question, with all due respect, and in my opinion.
McCain calls on Trump to clarify wiretapping claim http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/12/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump/
Trump needs to be impeached for this, amongst many other things. He is showing is unfit to lead and a threat to the Republic. He is also showing how people on the right will go to any lengths to defend their man - that it no longer is about fact or rational thinking (and probably never was)
Based on the philosophy - Every Lie Trump Admin says someone else is doing . . . it means they are doing it or plan to do it. . . . There is basically NO CHANCE they, the Trump Administation, won't be Bugging his opponents. Rocket River
Former President Obama should sue President Trump for libel if no evidence is found to back up these claims.
LOLOLOL!!!! Spicer and Trump, can it get any funnier? Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/
