|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 28 2016 05:27 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On November 28 2016 04:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion over WashPo's slandering of basically everyone in alternative media as being tools of the Russians. They're completely unhinged. Here is a good overview of WashPo's lunacy. I've basically taken "blame the Russians" to be a meme that someone didn't inform the Clinton loyalists doesn't really work for deflecting your own faults. Someone needs to tell mainstream media that continuing to push bullshit narratives is not going to help them repair their credibility. They really need to get themselves under control, because they can't get away with the same things that they used to. US media (mainstream or not) stopped caring about credibility a while ago. So long as they get the clicks no one is going to change. Fair enough, but the problem with the mainstream media is that they are still clinging to the pretense that they are the arbiters of truth and fairness in journalism. They then use that mantle to bludgeon their competitors and persons with whom they politically disagree. This attitude then trickles down to the consumer level where we get "lol Breitbart -- go read real news like WashPo" and "republicans/conservatives don't deal in facts or reality." Thus from my perspective, there is no level of contempt that these mainstream media outlets do not deserve. The NYT campaigned for the Castro's to get into power back in the 60's. They have been working to advance leftism since forever. NYT, 1957: "Fidel Castro is a humanist, a man of many ideals, including those liberty, democracy an social justice. ... The need to restore Cuba's constitution and hold elections"
That was when the government (backed up by virtually all the conservative media) was working to advance fascism (successfully) and death squads (successfully) in the whole of South America. Including in Chile.
Don't like Castro, but let's stay real there. If we want to talk about the 60's, let's get the whole picture.
Oh, and "advancing leftism" and "supporting dictatorship" are two different things, that I think should be kept apart. The problem of Cuba has been the later. I think I can testify, and so can Drone, that one of the most socialist countries today, namely Norway, is not a dictatorship. In fact it ranks number 1 in the Democracy Index. N°2 being Iceland, n°3, Sweden and n°5 Denmark, all very socialists countries. The United States are ranked 20.
So criticize the NYT for supporting what became a dictatorship, but please don't tendencious attack the left as a whole because it's just ridiculous.
|
On November 28 2016 06:15 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:11 zlefin wrote:
what eichenwald delusional rants being unconditionally accepted by most of the left?
I don't recognize the name. So I don't know whether I disagree or not; as I have no sense whether most accepted them or not.
I do not recall Comey coverage being too partisan by the media.
Trump/Hitler was said by a fair number of people, but not so much by the MSM themselves, they merely report on people saying it, and failed to adequately point out how it's not a good comparison.
Eichenwald went on some crazy like 40 tweet long rant about how Trump was linked to Russia (it was all circumstantial evidence, at best). The Trump/Hitler thing was done in the NYT in a review of a biography of Hitler that was written in a way that clearly implied they had a lot in common (when asked the NYT said it spoke for itself). That's just off the top of my head, I know there were more. The Comey thing didn't seem too partisan because pretty much everyone agreed he handled it poorly, just for wildly different reasons.
I don't see how eichenwald's rant is then relevant;
all the Trump/russia links I've seen, which were all circumstantial, came from other sources, and were sufficient to establish a weak circumstantial case of something (but not of what).
on a review of a biography, would that be in the book reviews section? or in the editorial section?
It'd also take more than one random instance of a topic many talked about to qualify imho.
|
On November 28 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Ok, is this guy completely insane?
I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality?
Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying. it's who he is, and the people who elected him know that. No one expects him to become some sort of presidential politically correct politician with nuanced/hedged positions that don't really say anything. You better get used to this for the next 4 years, and instead of being terrified, grab some popcorn.
So if I understand, being PC means saying the truth or at least not saying completely bat shit crazy crap all the time.
That's good to know.
I'm well aware you elected a guy you know is either a serial liar or completely unstable. I also know you completely fail to see the problem.
Maybe that's even more worrying than the guy itself. I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy?
|
On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Ok, is this guy completely insane? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality? Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying.
He is, after all, just starting a conversation.
|
On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Ok, is this guy completely insane? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality? Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying. it's who he is, and the people who elected him know that. No one expects him to become some sort of presidential politically correct politician with nuanced/hedged positions that don't really say anything. You better get used to this for the next 4 years, and instead of being terrified, grab some popcorn. So if I understand, being PC means saying the truth or at least not saying completely bat shit crazy crap all the time. That's good to know. I'm well aware you elected a guy you know is either a serial liar or completely unstable. I also know you completely fail to see the problem. Maybe that's even more worrying than the guy itself. I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy?
it says that it hasn't changed much. and that the known flaws and problems of democracy apply just as much now as they did in the past.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy?
We also have to consider that the other side advanced a serial liar with a long history of dirty dealings who has lower favorability than any candidate in history other than her opponent. And she made the case for herself against her primary opponent by using money, establishment support, and making the argument that they have to nominate her because she is the electable one who will win the general.
Both sides kind of really sucked. One side may be worse than the other but frankly what Clinton represents disgusts me every bit as much as what Trump does and what he intends to do. We lost before the General even began.
|
On November 28 2016 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 28 2016 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On November 28 2016 04:48 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 04:21 xDaunt wrote:I'm surprised that there isn't more discussion over WashPo's slandering of basically everyone in alternative media as being tools of the Russians. They're completely unhinged. Here is a good overview of WashPo's lunacy. I've basically taken "blame the Russians" to be a meme that someone didn't inform the Clinton loyalists doesn't really work for deflecting your own faults. Someone needs to tell mainstream media that continuing to push bullshit narratives is not going to help them repair their credibility. They really need to get themselves under control, because they can't get away with the same things that they used to. US media (mainstream or not) stopped caring about credibility a while ago. So long as they get the clicks no one is going to change. Fair enough, but the problem with the mainstream media is that they are still clinging to the pretense that they are the arbiters of truth and fairness in journalism. They then use that mantle to bludgeon their competitors and persons with whom they politically disagree. This attitude then trickles down to the consumer level where we get "lol Breitbart -- go read real news like WashPo" and "republicans/conservatives don't deal in facts or reality." Thus from my perspective, there is no level of contempt that these mainstream media outlets do not deserve. The NYT campaigned for the Castro's to get into power back in the 60's. They have been working to advance leftism since forever. NYT, 1957: "Fidel Castro is a humanist, a man of many ideals, including those liberty, democracy an social justice. ... The need to restore Cuba's constitution and hold elections" That was when the government (backed up by virtually all the conservative media) was working to advance fascism (successfully) and death squads (successfully) in the whole of South America. Including in Chile. Don't like Castro, but let's stay real there. If we want to talk about the 60's, let's get the whole picture. Oh, and "advancing leftism" and "supporting dictatorship" are two different things, that I think should be kept apart. The problem of Cuba has been the later. I think I can testify, and so can Drone, that one of the most socialist countries today, namely Norway, is not a dictatorship. In fact it ranks number 1 in the Democracy Index. N°2 being Iceland, n°3, Sweden and n°5 Denmark, all very socialists countries. The United States are ranked 20. So criticize the NYT for supporting what became a dictatorship, but please don't tendencious attack the left as a whole because it's just ridiculous.
Those aren't socialist countries they're mixed. They work on a market based economy. All those countries rank highly on the ease of doing business index.
|
On November 28 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 05:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you conservatives feel about NPR? NPR is no better than the mainstream media outlets. NPR pushes the same narratives with the same bullshit tactics.
NPR is pretty good, I like how they actually interview the small people and give them time on the air. But they do lean hard left
|
On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Ok, is this guy completely insane? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality? Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying. it's who he is, and the people who elected him know that. No one expects him to become some sort of presidential politically correct politician with nuanced/hedged positions that don't really say anything. You better get used to this for the next 4 years, and instead of being terrified, grab some popcorn. So if I understand, being PC means saying the truth or at least not saying completely bat shit crazy crap all the time. That's good to know. I'm well aware you elected a guy you know is either a serial liar or completely unstable. I also know you completely fail to see the problem. Maybe that's even more worrying than the guy itself. I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy?
It says that politicans are out of touch with the people, and more specifically the dems failed horribly with their choice of candidate.
|
On November 28 2016 06:36 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 05:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you conservatives feel about NPR? NPR is no better than the mainstream media outlets. NPR pushes the same narratives with the same bullshit tactics. NPR is pretty good, I like how they actually interview the small people and give them time on the air. But they do lean hard left
NPR does its best to embarrass and humiliate conservative guests, and then goes into hardcore denial mode when they fail. The only difference between the hacks at NPR and other leftist media outlets is that NPR receives some public funding.
|
On November 28 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:36 Hexe wrote:On November 28 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 05:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you conservatives feel about NPR? NPR is no better than the mainstream media outlets. NPR pushes the same narratives with the same bullshit tactics. NPR is pretty good, I like how they actually interview the small people and give them time on the air. But they do lean hard left NPR does its best to embarrass and humiliate conservative guests, and then goes into hardcore denial mode when they fail. The only difference between the hacks at NPR and other leftist media outlets is that NPR receives some public funding.
So what news DO you actually trust? fox? breitbart? infowars? CNN? Huffpo?
|
On November 28 2016 06:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 28 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:On November 28 2016 06:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Ok, is this guy completely insane? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664I mean, to my dear conservative fellows here, don't you find it a bit worrying that your president elect seems to have such a tenuous relationship with reality? Because personally, the more it goes and the more I would qualify his erratic bullshit as terrifying. it's who he is, and the people who elected him know that. No one expects him to become some sort of presidential politically correct politician with nuanced/hedged positions that don't really say anything. You better get used to this for the next 4 years, and instead of being terrified, grab some popcorn. So if I understand, being PC means saying the truth or at least not saying completely bat shit crazy crap all the time. That's good to know. I'm well aware you elected a guy you know is either a serial liar or completely unstable. I also know you completely fail to see the problem. Maybe that's even more worrying than the guy itself. I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy? it says that it hasn't changed much. and that the known flaws and problems of democracy apply just as much now as they did in the past.
I think here Koyré definition of totalitarian anthropology is quite relevant. Koyré argues that the contempt totalitarians have for people and their supporters mean they don't deserve to be told the truth, because they don't care and are fundamentally unable to think anyway. I'm sorry to say it resonates a lot with biology major's reaction:
"The mass of men are guided or, more accurately, acted upon, by instinct, passion, sentiment and resentment. The mass do not know how to think nor do they care to. (…)
The mob believes everything it is told, provided that it be repeated over and over. Provided too that its passions, hatred, dears are catered for. Nor need one try to stay within the limits of plausibility: on the contrary, the bigger, the cruder the lie, the more readily is it believed and followed. Nor is there any need to avoid contradiction: the mob never notices; needless to pretend to correlate what is said to some and what is said to others: each person or group believes only what he is told, not what anyone is told; needless to strive for coherence: the mob has no memory; needless to pretend to any truth: the mob is radically incapable of perceiving it: the mov can never comprehend that its own interest are what is at stake.
This then is the anthropology on which the members of the open conspiracy base their propaganda (…)"
(Koyré: the Political Function of the Modern Lie)
Koyré ends his essay that totalitarian leaders may well be right to despise humanity so much and consider it doesn't deserve a minimum of coherence or decency, but states that this applies only to their own people and not the ones of democratic countries:
"By a final paradox, which is really no paradox at all, it is precisely the popular mass of the democratic countries (…) who in accordance to the principle of totalitarian anthropology have proven they belong to the higher category of humanity, composed of men who think: on the other hand, the pseudo aristocratic totalitarians represent the lower category, that of the gullible who cannot think."
I'm sorry to say that if people consider that the truth is PC and heartily supports a leader they knows is lying all the time, the american democracy is on one very, very dangerous path.
|
On November 28 2016 06:45 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 06:36 Hexe wrote:On November 28 2016 06:19 xDaunt wrote:On November 28 2016 05:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How do you conservatives feel about NPR? NPR is no better than the mainstream media outlets. NPR pushes the same narratives with the same bullshit tactics. NPR is pretty good, I like how they actually interview the small people and give them time on the air. But they do lean hard left NPR does its best to embarrass and humiliate conservative guests, and then goes into hardcore denial mode when they fail. The only difference between the hacks at NPR and other leftist media outlets is that NPR receives some public funding. So what news DO you actually trust? fox? breitbart? infowars? CNN? Huffpo?
None. You have to read between the lines of any news source to really understand what you're being told.
|
On November 28 2016 06:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy? We also have to consider that the other side advanced a serial liar with a long history of dirty dealings who has lower favorability than any candidate in history other than her opponent. And she made the case for herself against her primary opponent by using money, establishment support, and making the argument that they have to nominate her because she is the electable one who will win the general. Both sides kind of really sucked. One side may be worse than the other but frankly what Clinton represents disgusts me every bit as much as what Trump does and what he intends to do. We lost before the General even began.
Excuse me, you can dislike Clinton very much, but on the truth department you can't seriously compare her to Trump.
I mean, the thing is that if Clinton had said any of what Trump said people would have been saying "WTF she is nuts and doesn't know anything" and it would have been a scandal. But in Trump case people don't give a crap, because he is a bullshit artist, and that he can very well say that the unemployment is 40% or that crime is skyrocketing in the whole country, it doesn't matter.
The fact that a president elect can say ANYTHING and that it's fine with people is new, and terrifying. That's all I'm saying.
|
On November 28 2016 06:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy? We also have to consider that the other side advanced a serial liar with a long history of dirty dealings who has lower favorability than any candidate in history other than her opponent. And she made the case for herself against her primary opponent by using money, establishment support, and making the argument that they have to nominate her because she is the electable one who will win the general. Both sides kind of really sucked. One side may be worse than the other but frankly what Clinton represents disgusts me every bit as much as what Trump does and what he intends to do. We lost before the General even began. Excuse me, you can dislike Clinton very much, but on the truth department you can't seriously compare her to Trump. I mean, the thing is that if Clinton had said any of what Trump said people would have been saying "WTF she is nuts and doesn't know anything" and it would have been a scandal. But in Trump case people don't give a crap, because he is a bullshit artist, and that he can very well say that the unemployment is 40% or that crime is skyrocketing in the whole country, it doesn't matter. The fact that a president elect can say ANYTHING and that it's fine with people is new, and terrifying. That's all I'm saying.
Dude, she compared herself to abraham lincoln when asked about her public and private positions lol. Honesty is not her strong suit, in fact it was her downfall.
|
On November 28 2016 06:53 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 28 2016 06:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy? We also have to consider that the other side advanced a serial liar with a long history of dirty dealings who has lower favorability than any candidate in history other than her opponent. And she made the case for herself against her primary opponent by using money, establishment support, and making the argument that they have to nominate her because she is the electable one who will win the general. Both sides kind of really sucked. One side may be worse than the other but frankly what Clinton represents disgusts me every bit as much as what Trump does and what he intends to do. We lost before the General even began. Excuse me, you can dislike Clinton very much, but on the truth department you can't seriously compare her to Trump. I mean, the thing is that if Clinton had said any of what Trump said people would have been saying "WTF she is nuts and doesn't know anything" and it would have been a scandal. But in Trump case people don't give a crap, because he is a bullshit artist, and that he can very well say that the unemployment is 40% or that crime is skyrocketing in the whole country, it doesn't matter. The fact that a president elect can say ANYTHING and that it's fine with people is new, and terrifying. That's all I'm saying. Dude, she compared herself to abraham lincoln when asked about her public and private positions lol. Honesty is not her strong suit, in fact it was her downfall.
Man, are you even aware of the number of false statements Trump has made during his campaign? We talk about 30 every single day. I'm not talking about one dumb or false thing Trump said. Yes Hillary has lied here and there, yes all politicians, and in fact everyone does. But that's REALLY not the point, because I'm talking about a guy who lie or make stuff up all the fucking time and just talk crazy. Like, bat shit crazy.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
https://www.indy100.com/article/this-journalist-is-listing-all-the-lies-donald-trump-tells-every-day-7322776
I think it's absolutely amazing that you don't see how that's a problem. And really if most people don't think it's a problem, I think we, the humanity, are fucked, and I mean it.
And stop answering with Clinton. Clinton is not president. I want you to explain to me how it is ok that your president elect has absolutely no connection to the truth whatsoever. That's completely beyond me.
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 28 2016 06:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm sorry to say that if people consider that the truth is PC and heartily supports a leader they knows is lying all the time, the american democracy is on one very, very dangerous path.
To play devil's advocate, what notion of 'truth' is acceptable in a world where any striving for it is equated to pushing an agenda? One of the more insidious ideas that has gained widespread acceptance over the last 50-60 years of American public life is that there is no such thing as unvarnished truth. It is always connected to an imbalanced power dynamic, a corrupt institution or a bid for personal gain. This position has been pushed by both parties whenever it's convenient, and it's a large reason why identity politics has become so influential.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn if Koyre was a major influence on Leo Strauss.
|
biff -> a lot of people, even those who voted for him, think trump is a liar. They just supported him anyways for various reasons.
and Koyre is overoptimistic in his assessment of the voters in democracies. Most people everywhere in general aren't that discerning.
and people don't care that much for rationality or truth.
bio -> I don't see how that counters biff's point about their being a massive difference between the degree/amount of truth from trump vs clinton.
|
On November 28 2016 07:01 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm sorry to say that if people consider that the truth is PC and heartily supports a leader they knows is lying all the time, the american democracy is on one very, very dangerous path. To play devil's advocate, what notion of 'truth' is acceptable in a world where any striving for it is equated to pushing an agenda? One of the more insidious ideas that has gained widespread acceptance over the last 50-60 years of American public life is that there is no such thing as unvarnished truth. It is always connected to an imbalanced power dynamic, a corrupt institution or a bid for personal gain.
Well if I listen to a candidate and I start realizing that he is just taking me for an idiot and stating what completely false fact after another, I'll have a problem. I don't know you.
And I think (or thought) that most people would. If anything out of self respect.
Truth is what democracy is based upon. Remove it and it collapses. Of course people and politicians compromise with it. But here we have a complete disconnection, and it looks like people like biology major is totally ok with that.
|
On November 28 2016 06:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2016 06:53 biology]major wrote:On November 28 2016 06:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 28 2016 06:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 28 2016 06:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think we have to start thinking very hard about the fact that half an advance country consider that making stuff up all the time, disregarding the facts and lying like at a machinegun rate is perfectly ok. I mean, what does that say about the US democracy? We also have to consider that the other side advanced a serial liar with a long history of dirty dealings who has lower favorability than any candidate in history other than her opponent. And she made the case for herself against her primary opponent by using money, establishment support, and making the argument that they have to nominate her because she is the electable one who will win the general. Both sides kind of really sucked. One side may be worse than the other but frankly what Clinton represents disgusts me every bit as much as what Trump does and what he intends to do. We lost before the General even began. Excuse me, you can dislike Clinton very much, but on the truth department you can't seriously compare her to Trump. I mean, the thing is that if Clinton had said any of what Trump said people would have been saying "WTF she is nuts and doesn't know anything" and it would have been a scandal. But in Trump case people don't give a crap, because he is a bullshit artist, and that he can very well say that the unemployment is 40% or that crime is skyrocketing in the whole country, it doesn't matter. The fact that a president elect can say ANYTHING and that it's fine with people is new, and terrifying. That's all I'm saying. Dude, she compared herself to abraham lincoln when asked about her public and private positions lol. Honesty is not her strong suit, in fact it was her downfall. Man, are you even aware of the number of false statements Trump has made during his campaign? We talk about 30 every single day. I'm not talking about one dumb or false thing Trump said. Yes Hillary has lied here and there, yes all politicians, and in fact everyone does. But that's REALLY not the point, because I'm talking about a guy who lie or make stuff up all the fucking time and just talk crazy. Like, bat shit crazy. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/https://www.indy100.com/article/this-journalist-is-listing-all-the-lies-donald-trump-tells-every-day-7322776I think it's absolutely amazing that you don't see how that's a problem. And really if most people don't think it's a problem, I think we, the humanity, are fucked, and I mean it.
Scrutinizing Trump's tweets the way you would scrutinize a politician's is a bit silly, he shit posts on the regular and it isn't going to change. I like how you are interpreting Trump's victory as a failure of the american people, instead of what it actually is: a failure of the establishment and his opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
