Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

[The Thriller]

Serious question. Does anyone on here actually look at both sides and evaluate what is actually fact and what is distorted opinion? What this means to me is looking what both the liberal sites put out (CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Huffington Post, NY Times, etc.) and what conservative sites put out (FoxNews, newsbusters.org, dailywire.com, hotair.com, etc.) It means looking for truth and lies. It means looking for obvious media bias on both sides. It means acknowledging that there are two sides to every argument. This means the economy, jobs, climate change, abortion, gun rights, capitalism vs. socialism, etc.

The democrats/liberals on here seem to actually believe that they are the great truth speakers and the republicans/conservatives are "morons" or "idiots" for refuting the false information you say. Just because there are more liberals on this site it appears that conservatives do not have an opinion. I could spend all day refuting the liberal garbage and post articles and videos but it is not worth my time. Everyone on here has pretty much made up their mind anyways.

Believe it or not, there are two sides here and I as a conservative get pretty tired of the old condescending, name calling crap the liberals spew out.

Have a great day everyone!

You understand that this isn't even debatable, right? Like studies using empirical data have been collected and have found that Fox News is the worst "news" outlet out of the major ones. It lies so much that its viewers actually know less than those who watch NO news at all. So lets stop pretending that there's a "both sides are equal/same" rational going on. Nothing on the left touches Fox News in misinformation, loyalty to Trump, and viewership.

 

[colton]

Serious question. Does anyone on here actually look at both sides and evaluate what is actually fact and what is distorted opinion? What this means to me is looking what both the liberal sites put out (CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Huffington Post, NY Times, etc.) and what conservative sites put out (FoxNews, newsbusters.org, dailywire.com, hotair.com, etc.) It means looking for truth and lies. It means looking for obvious media bias on both sides. It means acknowledging that there are two sides to every argument. This means the economy, jobs, climate change, abortion, gun rights, capitalism vs. socialism, etc.

Yes, that's actually what I do. Or try to do, anyway. But I wish there were more of us!!

 

[infection]

I believe most of the time democrats are repeating what Trump has stated on twitter and at rallies. I believe democrats are sometimes overwhelmed in refuting whatever Trump’s minions say that it’s often difficult to know what democrats stand for since they’re so busy shoveling out the garbage.

You really think that democrats engage in gaslighting to the same extent as republicans these days?

Look at the primary accusations democrats have leveled on republicans over the past two years:

Xenophobic
Corrupt
Nationalist

Are we really so wrong? Is this really hyperbole?

So I guess to answer your question, absolutely I feel like democrats more accurately describe republicans than republicans describe democrats. We still live primarily in the world of facts, not alt facts.

In just the past 48 hrs your Republican Party has done nothing about:

It’s president bragging about being annationalist. And then calling for his followers (republicans) to QUOTE, “Make nationalism great again” UNQUOTE.

Blatantly stoke the fires of nativism abou this caravan. He claimed that “unknown middle easterners” were traveling with them. When called out on this he admitted to having zero evidence.

Nothing to sanction SA for killing a journalist.

Called for imprisoning Beto O’Rourke at Ted Cruz’s campaign rally.

But please, swat at the knats of the DNC. Your republican party is a complete nationalistic/fascist mess.

So, essentially, the tl;dr was this:

When Republicans tell Democrats what they believe, they're engaging in spreading a type of deliberate misinformation that distracts the potential voters from the key issues, caricaturizes beliefs, ignores all nuance, creates straw-men, and empowers fascism to continue unabated. When Democrats tell Republicans what they believe, they're just dishing out the cold, hard facts.

 

[colton]

You understand that this isn't even debatable, right? Like studies using empirical data have been collected and have found that Fox News is the worst "news" outlet out of the major ones. It lies so much that its viewers actually know less than those who watch NO news at all. So lets stop pretending that there's a "both sides are equal/same" rational going on. Nothing on the left touches Fox News in misinformation, loyalty to Trump, and viewership.

I agree with this (and I'm a moderate conservative). FoxNews has definitely taken a turn for the worse in the past 2 years, so much so that about the only show I will watch there is Shepherd Smith.

 

[colton]

So, essentially, the tl;dr was this:

Nailed it! LOL

 

[One Brow]

Serious question. Does anyone on here actually look at both sides and evaluate what is actually fact and what is distorted opinion? What this means to me is looking what both the liberal sites put out (CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Huffington Post, NY Times, etc.) and what conservative sites put out (FoxNews, newsbusters.org, dailywire.com, hotair.com, etc.)

Serious question. How can you call CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT liberal and expect actual liberals to take you seriously? How can you equate the quality and reliability of the NYT with that of dailywire.com and not expect to be mocked?

It means looking for obvious media bias on both sides.

Where both sides mean strongly conservatively slanted news vs. middle-of-the-road, establishment-supporting news?

It means acknowledging that there are two sides to every argument. This means the economy, jobs, climate change, abortion, gun rights, capitalism vs. socialism, etc.

There are two sides to "jobs"? What are the two sides to "climate change"? For your next trick, why not claim there are two sides to evolution?

The democrats/liberals on here seem to actually believe that they are the great truth speakers and the republicans/conservatives are "morons" or "idiots" for refuting the false information you say.

When conservatives can actually refute (as opposed to dispute) what I say, I'll listen. For example, my understanding of gun control has shifted markedly in the last 5 years, because people who understood gun issues better than I had intelligent things to say on them.

So, what's some false information you'd like to refute?

I could spend all day refuting the liberal garbage and post articles and videos but it is not worth my time.

Nor anyone else's. When you can understand the issues well enough to engage in a discussion about them, that might be worth people's time. I agree simply posting videos and articles you can't defend is pointless.

Believe it or not, there are two sides here and I as a conservative get pretty tired of the old condescending, name calling crap the liberals spew out.

Outside of The Thriller, who are liberals that call people names?

 

[Heathme]

You understand that this isn't even debatable, right? Like studies using empirical data have been collected and have found that Fox News is the worst "news" outlet out of the major ones. It lies so much that its viewers actually know less than those who watch NO news at all. So lets stop pretending that there's a "both sides are equal/same" rational going on. Nothing on the left touches Fox News in misinformation, loyalty to Trump, and viewership.

I have some empirical data myself that says the opposite, so there!!

Harvard study: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

There are studies on both sides for all of these issues. You guys get that right? But if you guys say your side is right more loudly and condescendingly than it must be true...

Yes there are studies refuting the climate change hysteria.




Yes there are studies showing how liberal CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT are:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...ed-tv-trump-coverage-hits-92-percent-negative

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...bsessed-russia-no-time-muellers-controversies

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...against-trumps-immigration-enforcement-agenda

Have a good one.

 

[The Thriller]

I have some empirical data myself that says the opposite, so there!!

Harvard study: https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

There are studies on both sides for all of these issues. You guys get that right? But if you guys say your side is right more loudly and condescendingly than it must be true...

Yes there are studies refuting the climate change hysteria.




Yes there are studies showing how liberal CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT are:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...ed-tv-trump-coverage-hits-92-percent-negative

Have a good one.

Dear Lord...

Ugh...

 

[The Thriller]

Outside of The Thriller, who are liberals that call people names?

What else am I supposed to do to people who ignore Science, purposely make crap up about caravans to fan the flames of xenophobia, and who cheer on a nutjob who brags about being a nationalist?

I guess I could put them all on ignore. But sometimes, you gotta call stupid people out for their stupidity.

 

[Heathme]

What else am I supposed to do to people who ignore Science, purposely make crap up about caravans to fan the flames of xenophobia, and who cheer on a nutjob who brags about being a nationalist?

I guess I could put them all on ignore. But sometimes, you gotta call stupid people out for their stupidity.

You watch/read the news right?

It is not xenophobic to be concerned about the people in a caravan of 7000 to 12000 people.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/24/caravan_member_there_are_criminals_in_here.html

You know darn well that Pres. Trump is using the nationalist definition of:
a person devoted to nationalism (the devotion and loyalty to one's own country) Anything else you say is a load of crap.

Typical liberal response. Just because I have a different opinion that is also backed up by facts and studies, I must be "stupid".

 

[The Thriller]

But her emails...

 

[One Brow]

I am impressed with your ability to defeat your own arguments. Well done!

Harvard study:

Was this offered to show imbalance? It said, "Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests." So, all of the negative coverage was centered on what Republicans were saying.

Yes there are studies refuting the climate change hysteria.

Then quote the studies. Instead, you quote Lindzen presenting false balance (his Group 1 of scientists is more than 20 times the size of Group 2) and old data (temperatures started rising again in 2015, and have continued thourgh 2018), and a video refuting something that not a prediction of the climate change scientists (climate change does not predict hurricanes will increase in frequency, but that they will increase in destruction from higher winds, greater rainfall, etc., all of which we *have* seen).

Yes there are studies showing how liberal CNN/NBC/ABC/NYT are:

So, you are blaming the media for not reporting good news on the economy enough (as if they ever report good news), not reporting on the almost leak-free Mueller investigation (which Trump tries to distract from) as much as the very leak-heavy Starr investigation, and reporting on the policy of separating immigrant parent from their children for sole crime of entering the US. You somehow think this is bias.

I hate to disappoint you, but under Obama, the media did not report much on good news, did not report much on investigations that weren't leaking, and did report when families were separated. Sorry that fairness has such a liberal bias.

 

[One Brow]

It is not xenophobic to be concerned about the people in a caravan of 7000 to 12000 people.

Yes, it is. It is xenophobic to treat a group that's not even the size of medium suburban city as some sort of existential threat.

I would expect a handful of criminals in any group that size. That's one thing that gets sorted out in the vetting process asylum claimant go through.

 

[Zombie]

But her emails...

The money shot :

 

[The Thriller]

Yes, it is. It is xenophobic to treat a group that's not even the size of medium suburban city as some sort of existential threat.

I would expect a handful of criminals in any group that size. That's one thing that gets sorted out in the vetting process asylum claimant go through.

Not to mention the unnecessary and unsubstantiated claim that the caravan consisted of/included “unknown middle easterners.” I mean, what was the intent of such an outlandish claim if not to incite fear for middle eastern terrorists?

It’s really childish to pretend that trump intended on something other than fan the flames of xenophobia.

 

[Hotdog]

Orange man bad.

 

[Stars Fan]

It certainly does a good job of reinforcing the Republican view of what Democrats are.

Effectiveness level 9/10 in strengthening the walls of the bubble so you don't have to think about or understand what other people are saying.

Dripping with ridicule and self-righteous, holier-than-thou, scorn. I find it rather off-putting. Kind of cringe worthy actually.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Thriller]

Well, add another Trumper to prison. If trump is so innocent why are his followers so eager to derail the investigation?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...efers-scheme-targeting-mueller-to-fbi/574411/

An alleged scheme to pay off women to fabricate sexual assault allegations against Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been referred to the FBI for further investigation, according to a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr. “When we learned last week of allegations that women were offered money to make false claims about the Special Counsel, we immediately referred the matter to the FBI for investigation,” Carr said in a statement on Tuesday.

The special counsel’s attention to this scheme—which was brought to the office by a woman claiming she herself had been offered money to make up sexual harassment claims against Mueller—and its decision to release a rare statement about it to reporters indicates the seriousness with which the office is taking the purported scheme to discredit Mueller in the middle of an ongoing investigation.

The special counsel’s office confirmed that the scheme was brought to its attention by several journalists who were told about it by a woman alleging that she herself had been offered roughly $20,000 by a GOP activist named Jack Burkman “to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.” The woman told journalists that she had worked for Mueller as a paralegal at the Pillsbury, Madison, and Sutro law firm in 1974. The firm has not returned a request for comment about whether the woman actually worked there.

Jack Burkman apparently has connections to Roger Stone. Most people reporting on this issue believe he and Burkman concocted this dirty scheme. I’m guessing the FBI is not going to waste any time sending this jerk and his/her accomplices to prison. And if they can link him or the money to trump? Then you’ll have clear obstruction of justice, just like the Nixon tapes

 

[colton]

Wow. Hopefully they've got the evidence they need to put Burkman in jail (assuming he's guilty, etc), and hopefully there's a money trail to whoever originated it.

 

[Gameface]

It's a scary time to be a man who tries to pay women to lie about sexual assault. What is the world coming to?