Best quote about Trump

[jakee 1,255]

57 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Is that the same as when the media says "Sources Say"?

No. Unlike Trump, mainstream journalists usually have ethics and accountability. But well done you for finding yet another way to defends him.

[jakee 1,255]

25 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

There have been a LOT of sources used that have demeaned the credibility of the press in important matters lately, which was really my underlying point . . .

Right, so I’m sure you’ll have plenty o examples ready of how the mainstream media have used ‘sources’ recently where both the source and the story have turned out to be entirely fictitious?

[turtlespeed 212]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

No. Unlike Trump, mainstream journalists usually have ethics and accountability. But well done you for finding yet another way to defends him.

<Mr. Ed> Ok, Wilber.

[DJL 232]

14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

<Mr. Ed> Ok, Wilber.

Any news source worth their salt takes a big hit in credibility when they get it wrong.  They put much more effort and emphasis into validating their sources.  This is why quoting some lesser news sources is laughable.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Any news source worth their salt takes a big hit in credibility when they get it wrong.  They put much more effort and emphasis into validating their sources.  This is why quoting some lesser news sources is laughable.

I understand this - but the news sources have a track record of being just as "Bloggy".

For instance - CNN touted the republicans going into a closed door session of testimony on Trumps impeachment as a high value win, and described all that was bad about it.  While Fox touted almost the polar opposite.

Un-named Sources are as credible as the politics that the news source goes by.

That is unfortunate - but the media has become its own propaganda retailer.

Edited October 25, 2019 by turtlespeed
clarified

[DJL 232]

15 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

For instance - CNN touted the republicans going into a closed door session of testimony on Trumps impeachment as a high value win, and described all that was bad about it.  While Fox touted almost the polar opposite.

Neither of those are reliable news sources.  They are entertainment opinion news channels.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, DJL said:

Neither of those are reliable news sources.  They are entertainment opinion news channels.

And I counter with, There Are No Reliable News Sources.  They are all about entertainment and the bottom line is the dollar.

 

The only way to get a reliable story line is to read and watch ALL the news, and make a determination.

The problem is that people will gravitate toward the source that aligns with more of what is expected, for the most part.

I don't have a fix - I am pointing out the issue as I see it.

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by turtlespeed

[SkyDekker 1,123]

54 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

CNN touted the republicans going into a closed door session of testimony on Trumps impeachment as a high value win

What does this mean?

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

<Mr. Ed> Ok, Wilber.

So those are your examples? Ok, great. So you concede that Trump’s “some people say” is absolutely not the same as the major news media’s “sources say”. Good to know you’re not a total loss.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

 Good to know you’re not a total loss.

Hi jakee,

Are you sure about that?

Jerry Baumchen

[Rick 67]

16 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi jakee,

Are you sure about that?

Jerry Baumchen

well that was helpful

[turtlespeed 212]

45 minutes ago, Rick said:

well that was helpful

Its the standard.

Yet, I'm able to handle it, so I'm not going to have to block him to continue here.

 

 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

So those are your examples? Ok, great. So you concede that Trump’s “some people say” is absolutely not the same as the major news media’s “sources say”. Good to know you’re not a total loss.

Yes, in fact, I do agree with that statement.  He should find a whole different way to communicate.

Someguy McSaidso, or Somedude NotMe, saying something has less credibility.

Depending on your preferred news sources - The difference in the AMOUNT of credibility is in question.

 

[jakee 1,255]

28 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Depending on your preferred news sources - The difference in the AMOUNT of credibility is in question.

How much question? When Trump says “some people are saying” you pretty much know he’s lying, and that the entire thing is a fabrication from whole cloth.

 

When the mainstream media say they have a source, they almost always have a source. 

 

It’s a fairly fundamental difference.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

How much question? When Trump says “some people are saying” you pretty much know he’s lying, and that the entire thing is a fabrication from whole cloth.

 

When the mainstream media say they have a source, they almost always have a source. 

 

It’s a fairly fundamental difference.

That is your bias helping you assume he is lying.

It could be factually correct.  Some people could have said it.

That it is a shiesty way to do communicate, is different.

That you distrust him, and automatically go to what your assumptions tell you, is no different than defaulting to my assumption that Biden had to have something to do with Hunter's hiring.

 

 

 

 

[mbohu 77]

On 10/23/2019 at 4:20 PM, yoink said:

One must point out that at no point did the British public VOTE for Boris Johnson. Ever. At all.

True. But one could argue that their vote for BREXIT (which was pushed by Boris and another even crazier guy) started the events that inexorably led to him becoming the PM.

[mbohu 77]

9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It could be factually correct.  Some people could have said it.

Isn't that the point? The entire way he is saying that, is completely designed to be irrefutable. Since HE is saying it, there is already at least ONE person saying it, and since many of his followers will simply repeat his talking points you will soon have SOME people saying it. The entire reason to say "some people say" is really to suggest to his followers: "you should be saying this".

I don't think he is a mastermind in many ways (often he just bumbles around) but in regards to language I am almost certain that he uses these techniques on purpose.

The "no collusion" and "no quid pro quo" lines, were prime examples: He set them up and repeated them countless times--and then his followers, and then the media, repeated them. This was clearly designed to steer the conversation to set up some unrealistic or irrelevant baselines. Before he used the word, "Collusion" was never the actual word to describe the issue. So: he set up the standard: "unless you prove collusion", I am completely innocent. But "collusion" couldn't be proven, because it wasn't a legal standard applicable to the issue--and then later, when it looked like it may be possible to call what he did "collusion", they could easily pivot to "it isn't a crime" (which is technically correct.)
The "no quid pro quo" was intended to do the same: Make it so he actually has to be caught saying EXPLICITLY what he was offering for dirt on his opponents. Of course, generally no one does that (that is how in the US, you can have someone give millions to a campaign, and then the same politician enacts a law that makes that person billions--and it doesn't count as bribery, because you cannot ever prove the quid pro quo, since no one is stupid enough to actually say: "make this law for me and my contributions will be assured") Nevertheless, in this case the whole thing seems to not work out so well, because he forgot that he wasn't supposed to say it.

PS: I agree with Turtle though. Listening to ALL media (I would change it to ALL somewhat credible media--the others, one may listen to just to know what some other people are hearing) is really the best way to sort out some likely facts.

[jakee 1,255]

54 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That is your bias helping you assume he is lying.

It could be factually correct.  Some people could have said it.

Why would anyone have said it? No-one thinks MIA is the biggest airport in the world. It's nowhere close to being the biggest airport in the world. You don't need any bias to figure out Trump's simply lying about this. You'd need an enormous amount of bias to believe he wasn't.

 

Quote

That you distrust him, and automatically go to what your assumptions tell you, is no different than defaulting to my assumption that Biden had to have something to do with Hunter's hiring.

Except for evidence, precedent and black and white fact.

Edited October 25, 2019 by jakee

[kallend 1,623]

"I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President."   

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham talking about Marine General Kelly, Trump's former Chief of Staff, who had stated that he advised Trump not to surround himself with yes-men (or women).

 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:25 AM, kallend said:

"I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President."   

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham talking about Marine General Kelly, Trump's former Chief of Staff, who had stated that he advised Trump not to surround himself with yes-men (or women).

 

That is just downright scary rhetoric.

 

[yoink 321]

It sounds like media-speak from North Korea. All you'd need to add would be 'and his family has been sent for re-education'.