Poll of the Day > If you haven't already heard, Trump's own administration is working against him.

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkknight109 posted...

(who should arguably be undermining him a lot more than they are).

Why? SCOTUS aren't suppose to act as advocates of their personal beliefs, they're supposed to hear and decide on constitutional matters without bias.

darkknight109 posted...

Play the ref all you like, it doesn't make this sentiment any closer to being true.

The fact that it's true makes it true. If you're sitting there denying that there's a liberal bias in organizations overwhelmingly staffed by democrats who are often none too quiet about their personal beliefs (to the extent that professors take some personal days after the wrong president wins election)

darkknight109 posted...

Of course - how could I have not seen it? Two separate sources - respectively one of the world's most respected and successful news outlets

...with a history of making up stories, a personal vendetta, and who has been using negative coverage of Trump to fill their coffers -- in *exactly* the same way that other publications which also knowingly lied about stories profited. And again, the NYT has gone through unprecedented act to unprecedented act.

darkknight109 posted...

and the guy who fucking broke Watergate and is one of the most well-respected journalists ever - clearly both put decades of credibility on the line in order to make a bunch of shit up. That is a completely reasonable assertion and obviously not bat-shit-bonkers.

...you mean the guy who broke a story by providing evidence of wrongdoing who is now offering up unsubstantiated quotes and claims? Overlooking your pretty weak appeal to authority, you're forgetting that --- if you believe that Trump is the literal anti-Christ (because your echo chambers have constantly reinforced that idea) or view his rise as an outsider as a threat to the system --- it's unsurprising that people would be willing to stake *anything* on his removal.

darkknight109 posted...

Fuck me, this may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post here. You've said some ridiculous things in the past, but I thought conspiracy theories were below you.

A conspiracy would require shadowy coordination. I haven't accused the media of covertly coordinating attacks, but instead perpetrating and perpetuating a cycle of lies as well as abandoning even the facade of unbiased journalism.
---

Zeus posted...

When compared to the history that, and I must stress this here, we have *literal* historical examples *repeatedly* throughout history of the media outright lying about stories and politicians being in on it, dating back to the *founding* of our nation. Nor does it need to be a coordinated effort any more than you coordinate your lies with other posters here. You buy into some and then you add your own to the mix. And before you try to once again defend this, keep in mind that there have been a preponderance of fake and/or misleading stories.

Hey look, Zeus is literally incapable of addressing the specific relevant event and is again doubling down on pulling irrelevant shit (currently going back hundreds of years) to discredit stories that are breaking right now.

I'm gonna flip this right around on you buddy:

Zeus lies. Zeus has a years long history of lying, changing the subject to dodge times he's proven wrong, refusing to acknowledge the definitions of words and performing marathon sprints with goal posts. He is either a shill or the most pathetic troll in the history of PotD. None of his political posts have any merit whatsoever.

Now if you actually want to argue about the specific story:

Explain why a lib conspiracy would fabricate Republican damage control for an already documented phenomenon.

Otherwise keep pointing to lyrics from Hamilton to explain current events
---

Blighboy posted...

Hey look, Zeus is literally incapable of addressing the specific relevant event and is again doubling down on pulling irrelevant shit (currently going back hundreds of years) to discredit stories that are breaking right now.

Irrelevant shit? It's literally as relevant as it gets and directly refutes your half-baked, harebrained nonsense. Likewise you keep ignoring outright fabrications because you don't care what is or isn't true, just what reinforces and undermines your arguments.

Blighboy posted...

Zeus lies. Zeus has a years long history of lying, changing the subject to dodge times he's proven wrong, refusing to acknowledge the definitions of words and performing marathon sprints with goal posts.

All of which is outright bullshit, not so coincidentally spouted by a guy who does nothing but troll. And keep in mind that you're accusing me of lying *literally* after repeatedly lying in this topic.

Blighboy posted...

Now if you actually want to argue about the specific story:

You mean a specific story where a paper prints a completely unverifiable claim, the latest in a long string of unprecedented actions? And then has a justification even more sketchier than yours?

Blighboy posted...

Explain why a lib conspiracy would fabricate Republican damage control for an already documented phenomenon.

That's not "damage control." And your batshit crazy explanation for it being a Republican conspiracy --- a claim that makes no sense even at face value --- is infinitely less logical than the obvious explanation that a newspaper which has thus far *already* engaged in a series of unprecedented attacks against the president has once again made it up. The idea that you somehow think this *helps* the Trump campaign instead of working to further undermine it in the minds of voters shows that you're not even on speaking terms with reality.

Blighboy posted...

Otherwise keep pointing to lyrics from Hamilton to explain current events

So not only are you ignorant on current events, but also when it comes to history? Is there literally anything you know? Hamilton was dead and buried long before Aaron Burr was repeatedly accused by newspapers of trying to rally an invisible army to overthrow Jefferson.
---

Zeus posted...

All of which is outright bullshit, not so coincidentally spouted by a guy who does nothing but troll. And keep in mind that you're accusing me of lying *literally* after repeatedly lying in this topic.

Let's add lying to the list of words Zeus doesn't understand
---

Zeus posted...

Irrelevant shit? It's literally as relevant as it gets and directly refutes your half-baked, harebrained nonsense. Likewise you keep ignoring outright fabrications because you don't care what is or isn't true, just what reinforces and undermines your arguments.

It's literally not what were talking about.

Again Zeus. Buy a fucking Russian to English dictionary. Learn what irrelevant means. It doesn't refute a completely separate event any more than Icoyars sexual antics refute your arguments.

Zeus posted...

You mean a specific story where a paper prints a completely unverifiable claim, the latest in a long string of unprecedented actions? And then has a justification even more sketchier than yours?

Dodging the argument. Newspapers use anonymous sources all the time. You can't claim it's fake with no basis especially when it lines up with other sources.

Zeus posted...

That's not "damage control." And your batshit crazy explanation for it being a Republican conspiracy --- a claim that makes no sense even at face value --- is infinitely less logical than the obvious explanation that a newspaper which has thus far *already* engaged in a series of unprecedented attacks against the president has once again made it up. The idea that you somehow think this *helps* the Trump campaign instead of working to further undermine it in the minds of voters shows that you're not even on speaking terms with reality.

Its damage control for Republicans, not the Trump base. It doesn't help Trump and isn't meant to.

None of this is a conspiracy. The article is a Republican defence of the Trump administration.

Zeus posted...

So not only are you ignorant on current events, but also when it comes to history? Is there literally anything you know? Hamilton was dead and buried long before Aaron Burr was repeatedly accused by newspapers of trying to rally an invisible army to overthrow Jefferson.

How could you possibly read my post this way

Jfc
---

Zeus posted...

Why? SCOTUS aren't suppose to act as advocates of their personal beliefs, they're supposed to hear and decide on constitutional matters without bias.

They're supposed to, absolutely. But they don't, and haven't for years.

Because Congress has all but abdicated their constitutional responsibilities on actually passing legislation to solve tough problems (since they are more interested in getting re-elected than actually doing their jobs), the judicial branch has been de facto forced to take on more and more of those responsibilities.

And please don't tell me you're naive enough to think that presidents nominate judges based on their ability to act fairly and impartially, as opposed to picking judges that are likely to support things they want to do. If that were the case Merrick Garland never would have been denied a hearing in the senate.

Zeus posted...

The fact that it's true makes it true.

This would be true, if it were true; but it's not true so it's not true.

Most of the media just report on things - the fact that accurate reporting often paints conservative policies in a bad light because they're not supported by facts (see also: trickle-down economics, climate change skepticism, most "tough on crime" policies) is not the fault of the media.

Again, this is classic playing the ref - happens all the time in sports. If you come up against a team you can't beat, play dirty; then when the ref starts penalizing your team, complain loudly about biased reffing ("Look how many more penalties they called against us than the other guys! Those guys were getting away with murder and we got dinged for every little thing!") and watch as the refs crack down on the other team.

The media is, in essence, the referee in politics and conservatives have been successfully using this tactic for decades.

Zeus posted...

...with a history of making up stories

*eyeroll*

Sure, Zeus, the New York Times makes up stories. That is totally not a ridiculous thing to say, especially coming from a guy who once insisted that Trump wasn't actually golfing when he was visiting his resorts; he was using it to clandestinely meet with VIPs in an area away from the public eye.

You know what? I'm calling your bluff on this. Let's hear your case for the New York Times deliberately making up stories (note that you need to have proof that this was done deliberately and was not just a mistake that was later corrected if you want people to take this allegation seriously). I also want to hear who you think is accurately reporting the news these days.
---

Zeus posted...

a personal vendetta and who has been using negative coverage of Trump to fill their coffers

Accurately reporting Trump's numerous failings does not constitute a personal vendetta, and making money off of it does not make it untrue. Else I could just say "Well, Fox is making money off of positively portraying the Trump presidency, so Fox must be lying about everything.

Zeus posted...

...you mean the guy who broke a story by providing evidence of wrongdoing who is now offering up unsubstantiated quotes and claims?

Yeah, the guy who published stuff said by Deep Throat and fastidiously refusing to reveal who he was (turns out he was correct).

Zeus posted...

Overlooking your pretty weak appeal to authority

A statement of credibility is not an Appeal to Authority.

Zeus posted...

you're forgetting that --- if you believe that Trump is the literal anti-Christ (because your echo chambers have constantly reinforced that idea) or view his rise as an outsider as a threat to the system --- it's unsurprising that people would be willing to stake *anything* on his removal

Or, you know, they're reporting on stuff which is really unsurprising based on the way Trump acts. The guy is famously - and proudly - ignorant of how virtually every part of his job works, from foreign relations to intelligence to the apolitical nature of the justice department to emolument laws. People aren't shocked by what the book and the editorial revealed, because it's entirely in line with the behaviour we all see on a daily basis.

Zeus posted...

A conspiracy would require shadowy coordination. I haven't accused the media of covertly coordinating attacks, but instead perpetrating and perpetuating a cycle of lies as well as abandoning even the facade of unbiased journalism.

Considering both the Times and Bob Woodward reported on essentially the same thing, no, your allegation only makes sense if you're suggesting conspiracy. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the two had the fabulous good luck to independently make up identical stories.
---

Let's just remember what the WSJ said about pewdiepie and how accurate it was.
---