I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Not really worth my time worrying about what you consider "credible media".
Your "credible media" certainly has failed our country a few times recently, haven't they?
As I explained at the time, I didn't know much about the Epoch Times, good or bad.
And, to this day you and my other critics of that post still havent disputed the facts of that story. I'll make no apologies for posting a factually correct story, no matter the source.
You are welcome to share whatever you prefer rather than worry about credibility. If you think fact checking or looking for responsible sources for your posts is a waste of your time, that's allowable as well.
We've talked about credible media previously and have discussed tools that can compare and rate accuracy and reliability of sources. Maybe you don't find those discussions interesting or memorable, but you should have some idea of what media I consider credible from that AN content. I've certainly not been cryptic or mysterious about how I personally determine credibility in these threads. Do Ad Fontes or the Media Bias chart ring any bells for you?
No, I wouldn't say that any of my media outlets have failed the country a few times recently, you should provide some examples. FOX certainly failed the country and their share holders by spreading Trump's election lies though, didn't they?
There's no need to dispute "facts" found among the right wing propaganda of The Epoch Times. What they said about Biden was divisive drivel of no importance or purpose other than to inflame their targeted American audience. That's why you couldn't find other sources for the "factual" story.
As @Chare said, most of us check our sources and story details before sharing something as factual. In contrast, you said that you didn't have any idea what The Epoch Times was before you shared their story about Biden. Now knowing about that source, I guess you want to defend using them.
I don't recall anyone asking you to apologize for using a propaganda outlet to inform yourself and others.
You are welcome to share whatever you prefer rather than worry about credibility. If you think fact checking or looking for responsible sources for your posts is a waste of your time, that's allowable as well.
We've talked about credible media previously and have discussed tools that can compare and rate accuracy and reliability of sources. Maybe you don't find those discussions interesting or memorable, but you should have some idea of what media I consider credible from that AN content. I've certainly not been cryptic or mysterious about how I personally determine credibility in these threads. Do Ad Fontes or the Media Bias chart ring any bells for you?
No, I wouldn't say that any of my media outlets have failed the country a few times recently, you should provide some examples. FOX certainly failed the country and their share holders by spreading Trump's election lies though, didn't they?
There's no need to dispute "facts" found among the right wing propaganda of The Epoch Times. What they said about Biden was divisive drivel of no importance or purpose other than to inflame their targeted American audience. That's why you couldn't find other sources for the "factual" story.
As @Chare said, most of us check our sources and story details before sharing something as factual. In contrast, you said that you didn't have any idea what The Epoch Times was before you shared their story about Biden. Now knowing about that source, I guess you want to defend using them.
I don't recall anyone asking you to apologize for using a propaganda outlet to inform yourself and others.
I'm pretty comfortable that my credibility hasn't changed one way or the other with anyone here based on a factually true story being linked to by me. I'm also confident in saying I haven't linked to factually incorrect stories. Do you have any examples?
Does "collusion with Russia" and "Hunter's laptop" mean anything to you? The "credible media" didn't do their jobs very well on those stories, did they?
I'm aware of sites that rate bias of media outlets. They are useful to an extent, but then you also have to consider their bias. Have you carefully vetted those sources? I noticed in your examples you left out AllSides. A source that has been cited here in the past, perhaps by yourself. Maybe you left out AllSides because they rate Epoch as "leans right", which kinda rains on your parade, doesn't it?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I'm pretty comfortable that my credibility hasn't changed one way or the other with anyone here based on a factually true story being linked to by me. I'm also confident in saying I haven't linked to factually incorrect stories. Do you have any examples?
Does "collusion with Russia" and "Hunter's laptop" mean anything to you? The "credible media" didn't do their jobs very well on those stories, did they?
I'm aware of sites that rate bias of media outlets. They are useful to an extent, but then you also have to consider their bias. Have you carefully vetted those sources? I noticed in your examples you left out AllSides. A source that has been cited here in the past, perhaps by yourself. Maybe you left out AllSides because they rate Epoch as "leans right", which kinda rains on your parade, doesn't it?
When I think something is not factual, I address it in the moment. No need to rehash old discussions.
That's the same reality with the Russian collusion delusion of Trump's believers and the Mueller report. The Senate wrote a report on the dangerous contacts and connections. You said that you didn't read the report at the time. Trump tried to impede the Mueller probe, remember?
The Trump campaign's interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin's help.
The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.
"Hunter's Laptop" doesn't mean to me what you might think it means. To me it's evidence of the how far the GOP has sunk in their desperation to try to damage a political opponent. As if trying to extort the new president of Ukraine for persuasion political favors wasn't low enough.
You can image and imply whatever you want about my failure to provide you with a full list of options.
Why would that single analysis rain on my parade? Is that your objective here, to rain on my parade, or would you like to try to just exchange information about Trump?
heron said:
Re: collusion with Russia. Has the complete Mueller Report been released, or are we still going with Bill Barr's version?
As for the laptop, since HB never worked for the government in any capacity, I don't care.
This is another area of criticism for Garland, IMHO.
When I think something is not factual, I address it in the moment. No need to rehash old discussions.
That's the same reality with the Russian collusion delusion of Trump's believers and the Mueller report. The Senate wrote a report on the dangerous contacts and connections. You said that you didn't read the report at the time. Trump tried to impede the Mueller probe, remember?
"Hunter's Laptop" doesn't mean to me what you might think it means. To me it's evidence of the how far the GOP has sunk in their desperation to try to damage a political opponent. As if trying to extort the new president of Ukraine for persuasion political favors wasn't low enough.
You can image and imply whatever you want about my failure to provide you with a full list of options.
Why would that single analysis rain on my parade? Is that your objective here, to rain on my parade, or would you like to try to just exchange information about Trump?
This is another area of criticism for Garland, IMHO.
"No need to rehash old discussions:"
Followed by your rehashing of old discussions. Classic.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Your quote that I was responding to that led me to bring them up for "some crazy reason":
"No, I wouldn't say that any of my media outlets have failed the country a few times recently, you should provide some examples. "
And, your examples included the conservative delusion that reporting the clear and multiple Russia connections to the Trump campaign were a hoax and witch hunt. I debunked that, yet again, because you don't seem to retain the reality of the findings.
Yes, for some crazy reason you bring up old, debunked, crazy ideas as if they prove some point about liberal media failing the country. In reality, it appears conservative media failed the country by misleading conservative Americans about these things related to Trump.
Don't you have real examples?
toomuchbaloney said:
You brought them up for some crazy reason and now act like it's my game. Classic.
We run by need a room. We need a shared set of facts. We need a shared reality.
Yikes.
That should read; we don't need a room. We need shared facts.
There are distinct disadvantages to posting from a phone.
And, your examples included the conservative delusion that reporting the clear and multiple Russia connections to the Trump campaign were a hoax and witch hunt. I debunked that, yet again, because you don't seem to retain the reality of the findings.
Yes, for some crazy reason you bring up old, debunked, crazy ideas as if they prove some point about liberal media failing the country. In reality, it appears conservative media failed the country by misleading conservative Americans about these things related to Trump.
Don't you have real examples?
Yikes.
That should read; we don't need a room. We need shared facts.
There are distinct disadvantages to posting from a phone.
I didn't say anything about a witch hunt or a hoax. I said what you call the "credible media" failed to do their job on the Russia collusion and Hunter's laptop stories.
Btw, we've noticed you now stay away from the term "collusion". You were all in on that at the time, weren't you?
Anyway, this should make for some good reading for you:
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I didn't say anything about a witch hunt or a hoax. I said what you call the "credible media" failed to do their job on the Russia collusion and Hunter's laptop stories.
Btw, we've noticed you now stay away from the term "collusion". You were all in on that at the time, weren't you?
Anyway, this should make for some good reading for you:
Derp. You should explain how the liberal reporting failed the country relative to Trump's campaign interacting with Russians in 2016. Maybe they didn't highlight how dangerous that was for national security? You should explain if you can.
The coverage of the laptop is pretty simple. The hard drive came from Giuliani. It contains no evidence that incriminates Joe Biden. You must want more damming speculation and inflammatory language?
Yeah, collusion is a trigger word for Trump supporters because they didn't read the Mueller report or listen to his testimony and, therefore, have a misguided understanding of what the term means relative to Trump. Can you define it for me while considering what the Mueller report and the Senate said about the matter?
I'm struck that now you want to rehash what Durham couldn't prove and go all the way back to the dossier. Are you pretending now that the Russian interactions with Trump's campaign didn't happen and that the FBI should ignore stuff like that?
toomuchbaloney
16,132 Posts
You are welcome to share whatever you prefer rather than worry about credibility. If you think fact checking or looking for responsible sources for your posts is a waste of your time, that's allowable as well.
We've talked about credible media previously and have discussed tools that can compare and rate accuracy and reliability of sources. Maybe you don't find those discussions interesting or memorable, but you should have some idea of what media I consider credible from that AN content. I've certainly not been cryptic or mysterious about how I personally determine credibility in these threads. Do Ad Fontes or the Media Bias chart ring any bells for you?
No, I wouldn't say that any of my media outlets have failed the country a few times recently, you should provide some examples. FOX certainly failed the country and their share holders by spreading Trump's election lies though, didn't they?
There's no need to dispute "facts" found among the right wing propaganda of The Epoch Times. What they said about Biden was divisive drivel of no importance or purpose other than to inflame their targeted American audience. That's why you couldn't find other sources for the "factual" story.
As @Chare said, most of us check our sources and story details before sharing something as factual. In contrast, you said that you didn't have any idea what The Epoch Times was before you shared their story about Biden. Now knowing about that source, I guess you want to defend using them.
I don't recall anyone asking you to apologize for using a propaganda outlet to inform yourself and others.