dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Feb 24, 2018 16:43:33 GMT -5
Obviously. Since you avoided the temptation to editorialize on what you think my motivations are, you made that quite clear.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 25, 2018 7:48:31 GMT -5
Which you're basing on what, pray? CNN was approached by a couple of news agencies who were doing their fact-checking on the story of the scripted questions before they reported it. Young Mr. Haab had gone on the Tucker Carlson show on FOX and made the charge that CNN was forcing him to use a question they had written for him. At some point, an edited copy of the e-mail exchange between CNN and Haab had been released which left that impression. That edited copy was presented to CNN for comment. CNN at that point released the unedited version of the e-mails. CNN had been negotiating Haab's appearance. He had offered three questions that he would like to ask and the potential for a short statement. At that point, Haab's father (apparently a big Trump supporter) sent multiple pages of "background" or "talking points" that he wanted his son to recite. CNN naturally responded that the format of the program did not allow that. It was meant to have a lot of short questions to be able to get to as many people as possible during the limited time allowed. CNN told them that the multiple pages Haab's father wanted read were too long and that Colton would have to stick with one of the earlier questions he himself had offered. Again, Colton Haab had been discussing what the question would be. He offered three. CNN told his father that Colton would have to use one of the three that Colton himself had offered and not the multiple pages that Colton's father wanted read. I don't know at this point who originally released the misleading edited version of the e-mail, but one would guess it was either the Haab family or FOX. The format of the program did not allow several minutes of talking points to be read by one person. CNN apparently did, as I read somewhere, offer Colton an opportunity to appear elsewhere for a longer discussion, but he or his father apparently declined. Ah. The version I read involved phone conversations, and a CNN producer telling young Mr. Haab over the phone that the three questions he wanted to ask were off-limits. But it's good to get the other party's side of the story.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 25, 2018 12:12:04 GMT -5
CNN was approached by a couple of news agencies who were doing their fact-checking on the story of the scripted questions before they reported it. Young Mr. Haab had gone on the Tucker Carlson show on FOX and made the charge that CNN was forcing him to use a question they had written for him. At some point, an edited copy of the e-mail exchange between CNN and Haab had been released which left that impression. That edited copy was presented to CNN for comment. CNN at that point released the unedited version of the e-mails. CNN had been negotiating Haab's appearance. He had offered three questions that he would like to ask and the potential for a short statement. At that point, Haab's father (apparently a big Trump supporter) sent multiple pages of "background" or "talking points" that he wanted his son to recite. CNN naturally responded that the format of the program did not allow that. It was meant to have a lot of short questions to be able to get to as many people as possible during the limited time allowed. CNN told them that the multiple pages Haab's father wanted read were too long and that Colton would have to stick with one of the earlier questions he himself had offered. Again, Colton Haab had been discussing what the question would be. He offered three. CNN told his father that Colton would have to use one of the three that Colton himself had offered and not the multiple pages that Colton's father wanted read. I don't know at this point who originally released the misleading edited version of the e-mail, but one would guess it was either the Haab family or FOX. The format of the program did not allow several minutes of talking points to be read by one person. CNN apparently did, as I read somewhere, offer Colton an opportunity to appear elsewhere for a longer discussion, but he or his father apparently declined. Ah. The version I read involved phone conversations, and a CNN producer telling young Mr. Haab over the phone that the three questions he wanted to ask were off-limits. But it's good to get the other party's side of the story. Yes. My understanding is that the original conversation between young Mr. Haab and the CNN representative were over the phone. It was during that conversation that Colton initially proposed the three questions as possibilities. The problem appears to have arisen when Glenn Haab got involved. His attempts to manipulate both CNN and apparently his son are bad enough, but to then edit and release the e-mail response from CNN in an attempt to make them look bad for political reasons is far worse. He seems to think that, "If it works for Trump (to falsify the news) it'll work for me." Unfortunately as a Trump believer he doesn't realize that it really doesn't work for Trump. The only people persuaded are the already dwindling hard-core fact-averse "base" of believers. Thinking people are putting another nail in the coffin. The only people who look bad are Haab, the son he exploited, and Trump for jumping on the Carlson report before the facts came out. Interestingly, I read that the two news entities that approached CNN for comment were HuffPo and FOX News, which lends credence to the idea that there is a huge divide between the news and opinion sides of FOX. Do you recall the source you read originally?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 25, 2018 20:46:44 GMT -5
Ah. The version I read involved phone conversations, and a CNN producer telling young Mr. Haab over the phone that the three questions he wanted to ask were off-limits. But it's good to get the other party's side of the story. Yes. My understanding is that the original conversation between young Mr. Haab and the CNN representative were over the phone. It was during that conversation that Colton initially proposed the three questions as possibilities. The problem appears to have arisen when Glenn Haab got involved. His attempts to manipulate both CNN and apparently his son are bad enough, but to then edit and release the e-mail response from CNN in an attempt to make them look bad for political reasons is far worse. He seems to think that, "If it works for Trump (to falsify the news) it'll work for me." Unfortunately as a Trump believer he doesn't realize that it really doesn't work for Trump. The only people persuaded are the already dwindling hard-core fact-averse "base" of believers. Thinking people are putting another nail in the coffin. The only people who look bad are Haab, the son he exploited, and Trump for jumping on the Carlson report before the facts came out. Interestingly, I read that the two news entities that approached CNN for comment were HuffPo and FOX News, which lends credence to the idea that there is a huge divide between the news and opinion sides of FOX. Do you recall the source you read originally? I don't. I watched an MSNBC video wherein the anchors showed a video clip of David Hogg being interviewed for a surfboard-related story in CA. One frame was taken out of context to make it look as though he'd been interviewed in a school shooting in CA, and the meme was making the rounds on conspiracy sites. The term "crisis actor" came up during the piece. It was the first time I'd heard it (the term; the concept I've been familiar with for quite some time). I ran a search, which turned up mostly hits for legitimate "white hat" crisis actors, but there were also some links to the stories on Mr. Hogg. I followed one of these and wound up watching the clip of Colton Haab on FOX stating his questions had been rejected and he'd been told to stick to a script. I don't trust CNN as far as I can throw them, and I couldn't think of any reason why Haab would lie, hence I believed him. In retrospect, it turns out even teenage victims of school shootings can't be trusted to speak truthfully these days. Bear in mind: we're assuming CNN's version of the e-mails is the accurate one. Something to do with order of revisions on a Microsoft Word Document. But supposing Mr. Haab's version is the truth, if he has a major online e-mail provider such as gMail, Yahoo, MSN, etc., he can download a timestamped copy of the raw e-mail data which is digitally signed by e.g. Google in such a way that he'd have to have Google's private key to fake it. The signature is easily verifiable by anyone, hence he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his version of the e-mail is the true one... assuming it is. Since CNN would have to be the world's worst news agency to not know he could validate his version in this way, I'm guessing they're telling the truth. If they aren't, I guarantee you we'll find out shortly.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 25, 2018 22:01:39 GMT -5
Yes. My understanding is that the original conversation between young Mr. Haab and the CNN representative were over the phone. It was during that conversation that Colton initially proposed the three questions as possibilities. The problem appears to have arisen when Glenn Haab got involved. His attempts to manipulate both CNN and apparently his son are bad enough, but to then edit and release the e-mail response from CNN in an attempt to make them look bad for political reasons is far worse. He seems to think that, "If it works for Trump (to falsify the news) it'll work for me." Unfortunately as a Trump believer he doesn't realize that it really doesn't work for Trump. The only people persuaded are the already dwindling hard-core fact-averse "base" of believers. Thinking people are putting another nail in the coffin. The only people who look bad are Haab, the son he exploited, and Trump for jumping on the Carlson report before the facts came out. Interestingly, I read that the two news entities that approached CNN for comment were HuffPo and FOX News, which lends credence to the idea that there is a huge divide between the news and opinion sides of FOX. Do you recall the source you read originally? I don't. I watched an MSNBC video wherein the anchors showed a video clip of David Hogg being interviewed for a surfboard-related story in CA. One frame was taken out of context to make it look as though he'd been interviewed in a school shooting in CA, and the meme was making the rounds on conspiracy sites. The term "crisis actor" came up during the piece. It was the first time I'd heard it (the term; the concept I've been familiar with for quite some time). I ran a search, which turned up mostly hits for legitimate "white hat" crisis actors, but there were also some links to the stories on Mr. Hogg. I followed one of these and wound up watching the clip of Colton Haab on FOX stating his questions had been rejected and he'd been told to stick to a script. I don't trust CNN as far as I can throw them, and I couldn't think of any reason why Haab would lie, hence I believed him. In retrospect, it turns out even teenage victims of school shootings can't be trusted to speak truthfully these days. Bear in mind: we're assuming CNN's version of the e-mails is the accurate one. Something to do with order of revisions on a Microsoft Word Document. But supposing Mr. Haab's version is the truth, if he has a major online e-mail provider such as gMail, Yahoo, MSN, etc., he can download a timestamped copy of the raw e-mail data which is digitally signed by e.g. Google in such a way that he'd have to have Google's private key to fake it. The signature is easily verifiable by anyone, hence he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his version of the e-mail is the true one... assuming it is. Since CNN would have to be the world's worst news agency to not know he could validate his version in this way, I'm guessing they're telling the truth. If they aren't, I guarantee you we'll find out shortly. Here is another article that shows more of the opening emails between Colton and CNN, as well as the e-mails from Colton's father and the four pages he wanted read. It is the most extensive coverage I have seen so far. The CNN side clearly shows their intent. The article also says that, "According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it." Also, it appears that it was a person from the Tucker Carlson show who sent an e-mail asking CNN if they could verify authenticity and asking for comment on the exchange provided by Haab. The message was sent at 2:30 p.m. with a 4:00 p.m. deadline for response. That request was forwarded at least twice, and to somebody at 6:28, so it appears Carlson ran with the interview before getting a response from CNN. If it makes you feel better, Colton himself comes off looking fairly good in the exchange, until the interview of course (and assuming that Glenn had most of the input on the statement.) If that is true, it is his father who f***ed everything up (including persuading his son to lie on FOX), and who deserves all the hostility here. But what do you expect from a Trump fan?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2018 8:13:10 GMT -5
But what do you expect from a Trump fan? The same thing I expect from any other American.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 26, 2018 11:41:18 GMT -5
But what do you expect from a Trump fan? The same thing I expect from any other American. That is likely a great source of your problem.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Feb 26, 2018 11:54:18 GMT -5
I'm sort of at a loss as to what Mrs. Trump was supposed to do to Donald, Jr., (assuming any of this is true) in response to his liking of a post on social media. Spank him? The guy is an adult and I highly doubt he would be taking instruction from his step-mother. That's just stupid and an attempt to get the President and his wife into the negative news. Even if Mrs. Trump had done a lot with her cyber-bullying interests, she still doesn't get to tell Donald Jr what he does and doesn't get to "like". People here have liked posts I thought were nasty and stupid, but I don't blame their step-mothers.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2018 15:53:00 GMT -5
The same thing I expect from any other American. That is likely a great source of your problem. My expecting Americans to generally tell the truth, or my expecting Trump supporters to be as trustworthy as non-supporters?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 26, 2018 16:33:32 GMT -5
That is likely a great source of your problem. My expecting Americans to generally tell the truth, or my expecting Trump supporters to be as trustworthy as non-supporters? More the latter. Trump is likely the biggest pure liar in American political history. He lies openly about even insignificant things that can be easily disproven. He can't help himself. He may in fact be the single most fundamentally corrupt person in the country. He has been showing us exactly who he is for forty years. It should not be possible for anyone to honestly believe him at this point on pretty much anything. To the extent that supporters know this and back him on things anyway...? They are either similarly dishonest or blindingly stupid. If someone wants to support a Trump policy for the time that Trump's stated view happens to coincide with theirs...until he changes it? Fine. To support or believe in any way the man personally? No, that's a bit different. He is the ultimate user, and many, many people are being used.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 26, 2018 16:42:06 GMT -5
I'm sort of at a loss as to what Mrs. Trump was supposed to do to Donald, Jr., (assuming any of this is true) in response to his liking of a post on social media. Spank him? The guy is an adult and I highly doubt he would be taking instruction from his step-mother. That's just stupid and an attempt to get the President and his wife into the negative news. Even if Mrs. Trump had done a lot with her cyber-bullying interests, she still doesn't get to tell Donald Jr what he does and doesn't get to "like". People here have liked posts I thought were nasty and stupid, but I don't blame their step-mothers. I heard an analysis of how the Parkland students are using social media to spread their message. It was saying that they skilled at delivering their message with clever and sarcastic postings, which plays well on social media. They weren't really asking Melania to do anything, just roping in several different pieces of information to highlight the weaknesses of the first family. Of course it is meant to put Trump in a bad light. I think that was done openly and loudly. I don't believe you cleverly exposed a secret plot.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Feb 26, 2018 17:24:19 GMT -5
I'm sort of at a loss as to what Mrs. Trump was supposed to do to Donald, Jr., (assuming any of this is true) in response to his liking of a post on social media. Spank him? The guy is an adult and I highly doubt he would be taking instruction from his step-mother. That's just stupid and an attempt to get the President and his wife into the negative news. Even if Mrs. Trump had done a lot with her cyber-bullying interests, she still doesn't get to tell Donald Jr what he does and doesn't get to "like". People here have liked posts I thought were nasty and stupid, but I don't blame their step-mothers. I heard an analysis of how the Parkland students are using social media to spread their message. It was saying that they skilled at delivering their message with clever and sarcastic postings, which plays well on social media. They weren't really asking Melania to do anything, just roping in several different pieces of information to highlight the weaknesses of the first family. Of course it is meant to put Trump in a bad light. I think that was done openly and loudly. I don't believe you cleverly exposed a secret plot. Well.....I didn't think I did so either...but thanks for that clarification. Everybody probably thought, until you posted, that I (and only I) had figured that out. The person writing that analysis must be 10 years old because those postings are neither clever or sarcastic. They sound scripted and ill-informed and that's too bad - because these kids have people paying attention and they might just make a difference if they don't start acting like all the adults are acting every time they see Trump's name mentioned.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 26, 2018 18:02:53 GMT -5
My expecting Americans to generally tell the truth, or my expecting Trump supporters to be as trustworthy as non-supporters? More the latter. Trump is likely the biggest pure liar in American political history. He lies openly about even insignificant things that can be easily disproven. He can't help himself. He may in fact be the single most fundamentally corrupt person in the country. He has been showing us exactly who he is for forty years. It should not be possible for anyone to honestly believe him at this point on pretty much anything. To the extent that supporters know this and back him on things anyway...? They are either similarly dishonest or blindingly stupid. If someone wants to support a Trump policy for the time that Trump's stated view happens to coincide with theirs...until he changes it? Fine. To support or believe in any way the man personally? No, that's a bit different. He is the ultimate user, and many, many people are being used. Rather than questioning the wisdom of drawing conclusions about 38% (?) of 315 million people based on no scientific evidence, I'll point out that this appears to be the exact antithesis of the much reviled "liberals are evil" thesis once featured on YMAM, resting on a near-identical argument. You'll recall one of the things that came out of the official "Why are liberals so evil?" thread was the general agreement that, regardless of any kernel of truth that might exist in these theories, generalization to this degree serves no useful purpose and foments enmity between left and right. It's also clearly a form of a discrimination if you regard it as more than a blue sky theory.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 26, 2018 18:56:30 GMT -5
More the latter. Trump is likely the biggest pure liar in American political history. He lies openly about even insignificant things that can be easily disproven. He can't help himself. He may in fact be the single most fundamentally corrupt person in the country. He has been showing us exactly who he is for forty years. It should not be possible for anyone to honestly believe him at this point on pretty much anything. To the extent that supporters know this and back him on things anyway...? They are either similarly dishonest or blindingly stupid. If someone wants to support a Trump policy for the time that Trump's stated view happens to coincide with theirs...until he changes it? Fine. To support or believe in any way the man personally? No, that's a bit different. He is the ultimate user, and many, many people are being used. Rather than questioning the wisdom of drawing conclusions about 38% (?) of 315 million people based on no scientific evidence, I'll point out that this appears to be the exact antithesis of the much reviled "liberals are evil" thesis once featured on YMAM, resting on a near-identical argument. You'll recall one of the things that came out of the official "Why are liberals so evil?" thread was the general agreement that, regardless of any kernel of truth that might exist in these theories, generalization to this degree serves no useful purpose and foments enmity between left and right. It's also clearly a form of a discrimination if you regard it as more than a blue sky theory. You will notice though that I do not attack conservatives in general, nor do I attack Republicans in general. I do not attack those whose beliefs on policy at least temporarily coincide with what Trump states. And even on those occasions where I do attack any of those groups, I am careful to describe it as "far-right conservatives" or "what the Republican Party has now become." I am a liberal thinker, but a political moderate. Several of my positions would be classed as conservative, and we need a thoughtful conservative party in this country. Unfortunately, most thoughtful conservatives have been either near-silenced or run out of the party. I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. My last reading a few months ago was that there were either two or four countries in the world where respect for the United States did not drop since Trump became president. Out of a couple hundred? That's not very good. His approval rating in this country has consistently been the lowest on record at corresponding points of previous administrations. Again, not very good. For a reason. Because he is an idiot who is not qualified for the presidency, and he is on a fast track to becoming the worst in history.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Feb 26, 2018 23:08:05 GMT -5
Rather than questioning the wisdom of drawing conclusions about 38% (?) of 315 million people based on no scientific evidence, I'll point out that this appears to be the exact antithesis of the much reviled "liberals are evil" thesis once featured on YMAM, resting on a near-identical argument. You'll recall one of the things that came out of the official "Why are liberals so evil?" thread was the general agreement that, regardless of any kernel of truth that might exist in these theories, generalization to this degree serves no useful purpose and foments enmity between left and right. It's also clearly a form of a discrimination if you regard it as more than a blue sky theory. You will notice though that I do not attack conservatives in general, nor do I attack Republicans in general. I do not attack those whose beliefs on policy at least temporarily coincide with what Trump states. And even on those occasions where I do attack any of those groups, I am careful to describe it as "far-right conservatives" or "what the Republican Party has now become." I am a liberal thinker, but a political moderate. Several of my positions would be classed as conservative, and we need a thoughtful conservative party in this country. Unfortunately, most thoughtful conservatives have been either near-silenced or run out of the party. I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. My last reading a few months ago was that there were either two or four countries in the world where respect for the United States did not drop since Trump became president. Out of a couple hundred? That's not very good. His approval rating in this country has consistently been the lowest on record at corresponding points of previous administrations. Again, not very good. For a reason. Because he is an idiot who is not qualified for the presidency, and he is on a fast track to becoming the worst in history. Looks like his approval rating has dropped again after rising to a high for him...down to that of his base again...35%...Don't any of his base ever throw up their arms in disgust and say enough is enough? It was interesting to see the Governor give him a face to face talking to in front of the other Governors today...basically told him to stop with the tweets...listen to the people...forget the arming of teachers...Did he just let that dressing down just slide or did he come back as he usually does with a attack. One of the problems, and there are many, of arming and allowing teachers to carry in schools...no insurance. There is one large Insurance company who seems to insure public employees , police, fire and others and they said any insurance would be very high or possible not available...that would put the kibosh on his idea unless he would want the government to get into the insurance business.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2018 9:10:42 GMT -5
I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. ... Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Feb 27, 2018 12:58:34 GMT -5
I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. ... Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me. When u consider his expressed thoughts, attacks, out right lies easily refuted by grade school children, his dissing of any who just disagree with his ideas...forgetting those who actively attack him personally and his agenda....and so much more and the continued loyalty of his so called base...why would it be a surprise that the wonderment of continued support of his base at the level it is be a surprise...not brought into the equation. In the beginning, yes...felt not represented...liked what he said ...finally some one listening to their desires and wants..voiced same concerns vs illegals in the country, jobs disappearing over seas and and on and on...but after a year...no matter what he claims....still no wavering of support for him from that base...for some, it is unnatural....scary.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,772
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 27, 2018 13:13:42 GMT -5
I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. ... Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me. I'm surprised you are surprised. If you find out someone you know supports someone who lies constantly, do you really feel they are as trustworthy as you regarded them before you found that out?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 27, 2018 14:46:48 GMT -5
I AM very much against Donald Trump, believing that he is right now exactly who he has been for his entire life. He has demonstrated his utter lack of both character and integrity repeatedly over his lifetime. He is the most narcissistic and self-aggrandizing little twit we have ever seen, and his every act is meant to in some way enrich himself. He cares nothing for this country or its people, except to the extent he can exploit them. He is a horrible choice as president, and an embarrassment near-worldwide for our country. ... Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me. Remember though that I am specifically not ascribing all of his personal qualities to the entirety of his supporters. He is in a league of his own as far as personal failings and negative qualities. I have also specifically excluded those who merely support him because some of his stated policies agree with what they want to see. Criticism is limited to those who support, believe, and praise the many personally. I am still optimistic that THAT number is dramatically lower than 35% of the voting population. At best, those who support the man personally are guilty of willful ignorance and terrible judgment. At worst, they believe similarly to what he does, and have a similar disdain for truth, justice, and the American Way. (Apologies to Superman there.) I was reading about Billy Graham yesterday, and his regret that he had allowed himself to become closely associated with presidents. That it was not appropriate for him to have done so. It also included talk about his son, who is a big and open Trump supporter. One of the things Franklin Graham apparently said is that he doesn't believe Trump has ever lied to him, or that he is not aware of any lies on Trump's part. You cannot be any more in the guy's pocket than that. It is something that showed a rift not only between Billy and his son, but others in the family as well. It astonishes me that ANYONE who claims to be Christian can support Trump personally. Not on certain policies, but personally. There are too many obvious reasons not to, and Franklin Graham's open and enthusiastic support should disqualify him from any consideration as a religious leader. The correlation I make here is damning enough, Virgil. There is no need to overstate it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 27, 2018 18:40:21 GMT -5
Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me. I'm surprised you are surprised. If you find out someone you know supports someone who lies constantly, do you really feel they are as trustworthy as you regarded them before you found that out? Oh, mercy! I couldn't trust a soul on P/CE to tell me the day of the week were this the case.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 27, 2018 19:02:34 GMT -5
It's Tuesday. Should I have a few others confirm that for you?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Feb 27, 2018 20:39:14 GMT -5
the father of the student that claimed his question was "altered" by CNN has admitted to "leaving off words" that altered the emails & he shopped those around. In other words, CNN didn't change his question, didn't stage the questions, and didn't do what they were accused of on Fox News or by a couple of posters here. The father altered the email exchange to make it appear as if the questions were staged. Claims he didn't do it on purpose, but I think that can be questioned now considering how he & his son tried to run with their version of the story which was....wait for it....FAKE NEWS! www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/27/shooting-survivors-father-admits-email-changes-in-cnn-spat/
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Feb 27, 2018 22:21:22 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 27, 2018 22:26:59 GMT -5
OldCoyote was the poster who first brought up bad, bad, CNN I believe.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on Feb 27, 2018 23:02:21 GMT -5
You beat me to it Steff!
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Feb 27, 2018 23:04:45 GMT -5
OldCoyote was the poster who first brought up bab, bad, CNN I believe. I'm waiting for King Lecturer to respond with 14 paragraphs of how he was really "right" not wrong.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 28, 2018 9:47:46 GMT -5
Nothing in this scathing indictment of your President is new to me. That you extend his personal qualities (or even a substantial part of them) to the entirety of his support base such that you view these people as inherently less trustworthy than the general population-- that surprises me. Remember though that I am specifically not ascribing all of his personal qualities to the entirety of his supporters. He is in a league of his own as far as personal failings and negative qualities. I have also specifically excluded those who merely support him because some of his stated policies agree with what they want to see. Criticism is limited to those who support, believe, and praise the many personally. I am still optimistic that THAT number is dramatically lower than 35% of the voting population. At best, those who support the man personally are guilty of willful ignorance and terrible judgment. At worst, they believe similarly to what he does, and have a similar disdain for truth, justice, and the American Way. (Apologies to Superman there.) I was reading about Billy Graham yesterday, and his regret that he had allowed himself to become closely associated with presidents. That it was not appropriate for him to have done so. It also included talk about his son, who is a big and open Trump supporter. One of the things Franklin Graham apparently said is that he doesn't believe Trump has ever lied to him, or that he is not aware of any lies on Trump's part. You cannot be any more in the guy's pocket than that. It is something that showed a rift not only between Billy and his son, but others in the family as well. It astonishes me that ANYONE who claims to be Christian can support Trump personally. Not on certain policies, but personally. There are too many obvious reasons not to, and Franklin Graham's open and enthusiastic support should disqualify him from any consideration as a religious leader. The correlation I make here is damning enough, Virgil. There is no need to overstate it. I polled my extended family (as we were together) and the consensus was similar to what you've described here, with the same caveats. We tentatively agreed that if an individual consistently supports a liar, even a politician, this individual is inherently less trustworthy. There was no consensus on whether this extends to those who support a politician for policy reasons or those who are "voting against" another politician they believe to be the greater evil. Everyone did agree with me that you're overgeneralizing. Many (most?) of a given politician's supporters fall into these "policy reasons" and "lesser of two evils" categories, and don't hasten to defend everything the politician does. The "less trustworthy" profile applies to supporters who do hasten to defend indefensible acts (proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely alleged). Hence we can draw no conclusions about any one supporter, e.g. Colton Haab or his father, without knowing why they support Pres. Trump, and to what extent. Your comments about Christians overlooking or countenancing Pres. Trump's misbehaviour are a true criticism, as many scriptures make it plain that a man who countenances evil is as guilty as the man who commits it (one of the major contentions in the Oregon Bakery threads, transgenderism threads, "morality of nationalism" threads, etc.). Having said this, scripture also condemns gossip, prying into others' personal affairs, thinking evil of others (i.e. assuming the worst; pronouncing judgment without compelling evidence), and speaking evil of leaders. Furthermore, Christians are to judge by God's standard, not society's standard. (I can't rightly count how many times members have called a particular judgment 'Christian' or 'unchristian' out of ignorance.) Taking all of this into account, however, your criticism is true: many self-proclaimed Christians routinely defend misbehaviour by Pres. Trump that is "public business" and ought to be starkly condemned. Mostly because they're caught up in the left-right dialectic.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 28, 2018 9:59:05 GMT -5
I'm waiting for King Lecturer to respond with 14 paragraphs of how he was really "right" not wrong. Rather than deleting your comment for name-calling and baiting, which would be the just course of action, I will reply as if to a colleague: I remarked on Colton Haab's allegation in Reply #3 (calling it an allegation, and stating its origin), thanked Tall for providing CNN's rebuttal in #31, and admitted I shouldn't have initially believed Mr. Haab in #33. What more is it your pleasure I do?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2018 11:13:26 GMT -5
I'm waiting for King Lecturer to respond with 14 paragraphs of how he was really "right" not wrong. Rather than deleting your comment for name-calling and baiting, which would be the just course of action, I will reply as if to a colleague: I remarked on Colton Haab's allegation in Reply #3 (calling it an allegation, and stating its origin), thanked Tall for providing CNN's rebuttal in #31, and admitted I shouldn't have initially believed Mr. Haab in #33. What more is it your pleasure I do? I wasn't sure if that was intended to mean you (though suspect it probably was) so declined comment. If it was, I would certainly argue on your behalf in this thread.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 28, 2018 13:37:51 GMT -5
Remember though that I am specifically not ascribing all of his personal qualities to the entirety of his supporters. He is in a league of his own as far as personal failings and negative qualities. I have also specifically excluded those who merely support him because some of his stated policies agree with what they want to see. Criticism is limited to those who support, believe, and praise the many personally. I am still optimistic that THAT number is dramatically lower than 35% of the voting population. At best, those who support the man personally are guilty of willful ignorance and terrible judgment. At worst, they believe similarly to what he does, and have a similar disdain for truth, justice, and the American Way. (Apologies to Superman there.) I was reading about Billy Graham yesterday, and his regret that he had allowed himself to become closely associated with presidents. That it was not appropriate for him to have done so. It also included talk about his son, who is a big and open Trump supporter. One of the things Franklin Graham apparently said is that he doesn't believe Trump has ever lied to him, or that he is not aware of any lies on Trump's part. You cannot be any more in the guy's pocket than that. It is something that showed a rift not only between Billy and his son, but others in the family as well. It astonishes me that ANYONE who claims to be Christian can support Trump personally. Not on certain policies, but personally. There are too many obvious reasons not to, and Franklin Graham's open and enthusiastic support should disqualify him from any consideration as a religious leader. The correlation I make here is damning enough, Virgil. There is no need to overstate it. I polled my extended family (as we were together) and the consensus was similar to what you've described here, with the same caveats. We tentatively agreed that if an individual consistently supports a liar, even a politician, this individual is inherently less trustworthy. There was no consensus on whether this extends to those who support a politician for policy reasons or those who are "voting against" another politician they believe to be the greater evil. Everyone did agree with me that you're overgeneralizing. Many (most?) of a given politician's supporters fall into these "policy reasons" and "lesser of two evils" categories, and don't hasten to defend everything the politician does. The "less trustworthy" profile applies to supporters who do hasten to defend indefensible acts (proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely alleged). Hence we can draw no conclusions about any one supporter, e.g. Colton Haab or his father, without knowing why they support Pres. Trump, and to what extent. Your comments about Christians overlooking or countenancing Pres. Trump's misbehaviour are a true criticism, as many scriptures make it plain that a man who countenances evil is as guilty as the man who commits it (one of the major contentions in the Oregon Bakery threads, transgenderism threads, "morality of nationalism" threads, etc.). Having said this, scripture also condemns gossip, prying into others' personal affairs, thinking evil of others (i.e. assuming the worst; pronouncing judgment without compelling evidence), and speaking evil of leaders. Furthermore, Christians are to judge by God's standard, not society's standard. (I can't rightly count how many times members have called a particular judgment 'Christian' or 'unchristian' out of ignorance.) Taking all of this into account, however, your criticism is true: many self-proclaimed Christians routinely defend misbehaviour by Pres. Trump that is "public business" and ought to be starkly condemned. Mostly because they're caught up in the left-right dialectic. I'm not sure why you think I am over-generalizing. Did I not say that I am still optimistic that the number of blind supporters of the man are a minority? It sounds like your extended family agreed with me pretty much down the list. For the record, though, and in the specific case of Glenn Haab, I would suggest that anyone who will specifically create a lie and then go out of his way to perpetuate that lie (or compel another to do so) on a vast public forum to further a Trump agenda qualifies as a "true believer" in the worst sense of the term. All in all, I'll take the win.
|
|