|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success.
Why wouldn't they ask the question again at a live press conference outside of Russian control state media? Have they ever done it with Trump standing right next to Putin? There is zero harm to doing so. Also, it isn't like our understanding of the information in that dossier has not advanced since the last time the question was asked.
And I fail to see how any of this is embarrassing? I have any problem with a reporter throwing questions like that at a habitual liar like Putin. Putin, the guy who brought his dog to a meeting with Angela Merkel because he knew she had a fear of dogs. Heaven forbid someone try to put this guy on the defensive for once.
PS: Please ditch the phrase virtue-signalling in future discussions with me. It is a cynical term coined with the purpose to undercut efforts to show solidarity or stand up to power. And like most of those terms used mostly in internet discussions, it is overly broad and ill defined. If you want to say the reporter was disingenuous and seeking attention, that is fine.
|
On July 17 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success. Why wouldn't they ask the question again at a live press conference outside of Russian control state media? Have they ever done it with Trump standing right next to Putin? There is zero harm to doing so. Also, it isn't like our understanding of the information in that dossier has not advanced since the last time the question was asked. And I fail to see how any of this is embarrassing? I have any problem with a reporter throwing questions like that at a habitual liar like Putin. Putin, the guy who brought his dog to a meeting with Angela Merkel because he knew she had a fear of dogs. Heaven forbid someone try to put this guy on the defensive for once.
Why don't you understand that the reporter utterly failed to do all of the things that you say that the press should do? By what metric was his question a good one?
|
On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success.
The point is not only to get answers from Putin, but also to state such a question in public for the record. A press conference with Putin is not just a chance to get insight into the mind of one of the world’s most powerful people, because that misses out on the possible adversarial role you could take. Other ways to utilize such an event is to publicly embarrass Putin.
Though in this case the question was purely for American consumption and was just grandstanding, for instance all it does for a Russian audience is to make Putin seem cooler, but in general the point still stands that we should all be okay with “embarrassing” people in power.
|
On July 17 2018 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success. Why wouldn't they ask the question again at a live press conference outside of Russian control state media? Have they ever done it with Trump standing right next to Putin? There is zero harm to doing so. Also, it isn't like our understanding of the information in that dossier has not advanced since the last time the question was asked. And I fail to see how any of this is embarrassing? I have any problem with a reporter throwing questions like that at a habitual liar like Putin. Putin, the guy who brought his dog to a meeting with Angela Merkel because he knew she had a fear of dogs. Heaven forbid someone try to put this guy on the defensive for once. Why don't you understand that the reporter utterly failed to do all of the things that you say that the press should do? By what metric was his question a good one? He is a foreign press member asking a single question to a competent dictator. Of course he is not going to get anything done. Of course its purely about virtue signalling that not all of America is eating out of Russia's hand.
And your aware that Russian reporters that actually get close to doing what your talking about end up with a mysterious case of falling unto bullets right?
|
On July 17 2018 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success. Why wouldn't they ask the question again at a live press conference outside of Russian control state media? Have they ever done it with Trump standing right next to Putin? There is zero harm to doing so. Also, it isn't like our understanding of the information in that dossier has not advanced since the last time the question was asked. And I fail to see how any of this is embarrassing? I have any problem with a reporter throwing questions like that at a habitual liar like Putin. Putin, the guy who brought his dog to a meeting with Angela Merkel because he knew she had a fear of dogs. Heaven forbid someone try to put this guy on the defensive for once. Why don't you understand that the reporter utterly failed to do all of the things that you say that the press should do? By what metric was his question a good one?
They don't know unless they ask the question. That is why they ask them in the first place. If they knew the response, there wouldn't need to be a room full of reporters, they could just have one. Just because the outcome was predictable doesn't mean the question was completely without merit. Putin isn't a god and doesn't have super powers, he makes mistakes and slips up just like everyone else. And the reporter didn't know how Trump would respond either.
On July 17 2018 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:
And your aware that Russian reporters that actually get close to doing what your talking about end up with a mysterious case of falling unto bullets right?
Four in just 2017. And god knows what else that we don't know about.
|
On July 17 2018 01:37 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 17 2018 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:
LOL Trump straight up asked to say if he believes Putin or his own intelligence agencies and if the latter to denounce Putin in front of the world.
Trump goes into a rant about some missing servers. He briefly mentions that he doesn't know who to believe and that he doesn't see any reason why Russia would hack the election. He then goes back to the missing servers and Clintins emails. Then he finishes by saying that Putin was really sure that they didn't and even offered to help with the investigation, as if that proves something.
As expected, he choose not to believe his own Intel over Putin. Its possible he isn't a Russian shill, but if he was this is what he would likely say.
Edit: AP reporter asked Putin to his face if he has compromising data on Trumps family. This press conference is peak 2018. Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success. The point is not only to get answers from Putin, but also to state such a question in public for the record.
The question obviously failed to get the answer. There's no inherently valid purpose to asking the question that has already been answered publicly.
A press conference with Putin is not just a chance to get insight into the mind of one of the world’s most powerful people, because that misses out on the possible adversarial role you could take.
Again, I agree that there was an opportunity to take an adversarial role, but the reporter failed to do it effectively because the question that he asked was demonstrably retarded.
Other ways to utilize such an event is to publicly embarrass Putin.
Again, the reporter failed.
Though in this case the question was purely for American consumption and was just grandstanding, for instance all it does for a Russian audience is to make Putin seem cooler, but in general the point still stands that we should all be okay with “embarrassing” people in power.
The only person who was embarrassed was the reporter. Putin certainly wasn't.
|
On July 17 2018 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 01:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 00:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
Wooooow. The Trump - Putin summit is 1000% more nuts than I expected. I need to know who this god tier reporter is, because that is an amazing question.
Edit: Putin is now lecturing the Associated Press on what democracy is...this shit is wild. That was the dumbest question asked during the press conference. Let's just presume that Putin does have something on Trump. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer, is going to divulge that? I think you misunderstand the role of the free press when dealing with an autocratic dictator like Putin, who never have to deal with the free press.. There are not there to ask questions that he is willing to answer. They are absolutely not supposed to be an extension of the Russia PR efforts. What does the role of the free press have to do with a reporter asking a singularly retarded question that is going to do nothing other than prompt a shaming from said dictator whom the reporter is supposed to actually be challenging? Field reporters do not view their efforts individual, but as a group. That they are not scared of Putin or his goons and they are going to ask the ex-KGB director questions about what dirt he might have on other leaders, even if he won't tell them. That way, if the dirt turns up later, they can say Putin lied about it. And why would a reporter every care about being shamed by Putin or literally anyone else at a press conference? Do you know the amount of shit that gets thrown there way when the camera's turn off? Let me see if I can explain it to you differently. If the role of the free press is to challenge people like Putin, do reporters not fail in their role when they do not ask questions that actually challenge people like Putin? Putin and Russia are already on record saying that the dossier is false and that they don't have kompromat on Trump. For that reason, the question that the reporter asked served no purpose other than to offer himself up for humiliation and utterly fail in challenging a dictator. It was embarrassing by any measure. But hey, if you prefer virtue-signalling instead of actual results, perhaps you'll think that the reporter's question was a wild success. Why wouldn't they ask the question again at a live press conference outside of Russian control state media? Have they ever done it with Trump standing right next to Putin? There is zero harm to doing so. Also, it isn't like our understanding of the information in that dossier has not advanced since the last time the question was asked. And I fail to see how any of this is embarrassing? I have any problem with a reporter throwing questions like that at a habitual liar like Putin. Putin, the guy who brought his dog to a meeting with Angela Merkel because he knew she had a fear of dogs. Heaven forbid someone try to put this guy on the defensive for once. Why don't you understand that the reporter utterly failed to do all of the things that you say that the press should do? By what metric was his question a good one? He is a foreign press member asking a single question to a competent dictator. Of course he is not going to get anything done. Of course its purely about virtue signalling that not all of America is eating out of Russia's hand.
Or you know, he could have actually asked a really difficult question that made Putin uncomfortable. It's not like there's a shortage of topics ranging from Syria to domestic Russian issues.
And your aware that Russian reporters that actually get close to doing what your talking about end up with a mysterious case of falling unto bullets right?
Of course. Don't think that I missed that the RT question with the soccer ball was obviously staged. This just makes it all the sadder that the AP reporter wasted a golden opportunity with such a stupid question.
|
xDaunt, you do understand that by asking a question, you are also making an implication, right?
So if I asked you, "xDaunt, are you a partisan hack?" You can answer, "No, I just believe in the truth and defending people from the government", and think that you've deftly answered my question and made me look stupid. However, to everyone else, I've made an implication that you are a partisan hack by asking the question. It puts that thought in their heads.
By asking Putin about blackmailing Trump, the reporter is making an implication that he is indeed blackmailing Trump otherwise why would he even bother to ask that question? So for anyone watching who has never heard that Putin is blackmailing Trump, it puts a thought in their head. Nothing much will come of it, it's just a simple question in press conference, but there isn't exactly ample opportunity to get anything more done.
Given the circumstances, not a bad attempt to take Putin down a notch.
|
On July 17 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote:
I think it is common sense to avoid hashtags in general when posting. They tend to be hyperbolic and easily misinterpreted.
Common sense is to not have installed twitter (or facebook). Common sense is dead and millenials + attention hungry b-z prominence killed it.
Not to forget the youtube/google search algorythms... Lets watch 3-4 rightwing or left or mgtow or feminism or cute animal or cnn vids? Here have 200 more of exactly the same because you decided to see what something was about.
Seriously, whoever designed that youtube algorythm that recommends vids should be jailed for life.
|
Common sense was never alive to begin with.
|
On July 17 2018 02:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote:
I think it is common sense to avoid hashtags in general when posting. They tend to be hyperbolic and easily misinterpreted. Common sense is to not have installed twitter (or facebook). Common sense is dead and millenials + attention hungry b-z prominence killed it. Not to forget the youtube/google search algorythms... Lets watch 3-4 rightwing or left or mgtow or feminism or cute animal or cnn vids? Here have 200 more of exactly the same because you decided to see what something was about. Seriously, whoever designed that youtube algorythm that recommends vids should be jailed for life.
I’m still waiting for the explanation why I received PagerU ads for like 5 months straight. They could have just lit the money on fire, at least that would have generated heat.
|
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work.
|
If there was ever a question whether Trump was being "diplomatic" or just plain subservient, that has been put to rest. Trump is utterly submissive to Putin.
|
On July 17 2018 02:19 gobbledydook wrote:
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work.
Sad thing is, I tried to believe that my family wasn't racist until they called Michelle Obama a monkey.... I lost almost all hope after.
|
On July 17 2018 02:19 gobbledydook wrote:
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work.
Saying Trump won because people said red hats were racist isn't well supported at this point. Looking at the demographics that swung the election, anti-elite "change", shake up sort of sentiment as well as poor turnout is why Trump won. You don't get to just choose your favorite reason and cite that as a reason. You need supporting reasoning behind making an assertion.
I'm sure it feels good to be able to claim some sort of elevated position, but you are struggling to do so at this time.
|
On July 17 2018 02:19 gobbledydook wrote:
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work.
Well, Trump demonstrating his own idiocy had some pretty potent effects on polling (at least if we go by the post-debate numbers across the board). If we held elections two days after either of the fall debates the margin would almost certainly have been enough to carry the swing states.
Indeed, I believe the base competency attacks are some of the most potent ones, because there is almost never any counter to them, nor is being incompetent a core Republican value that can be easily spun as attacks on the voters supporting him. For the voters who are counting on him to be competent and a good manager to accomplish what he claims to be able to do it, it's a useful avenue of clarification.
Though some people insist trends in systematically biased polling are irrelevant for some inane reason I'll never understand.
|
If one ugly truth popped up by conversing with friends, family and acquaintances during the whole EU referendum, it is that racist people don't think they are racist. They are just telling the truth that normally have to be kept private by political correctness.
|
On July 17 2018 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 02:19 gobbledydook wrote:
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work. Saying Trump won because people said red hats were racist isn't well supported at this point. Looking at the demographics that swung the election, anti-elite "change", shake up sort of sentiment as well as poor turnout is why Trump won. You don't get to just choose your favorite reason and cite that as a reason. You need supporting reasoning behind making an assertion. I'm sure it feels good to be able to claim some sort of elevated position, but you are struggling to do so at this time.
And he just barely won too. So calling Trump idiot and terrible choice to hold office came very close to beating him first time around.
On July 17 2018 02:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If one ugly truth popped up by conversing with friends, family and acquaintances during the whole EU referendum, it is that racist people don't think they are racist. They are just telling the truth that normally have to be kept private by political correctness.
Racists are not cartoon villains, they are just people who hold negative opinions about a given race on what they believe is evidence based reasoning. They don’t wear signs and are mostly indifferent to the suffering of minority groups in their country.
|
On July 17 2018 02:19 gobbledydook wrote:
believing that all those who supported Trump are racist assholes is how you lose again in 2020.
it is no use blasting Trump for being an idiot. You tried that during the campaign, didn't work.
aye, this is correct.
it doesn't matter if it's true; it's ineffective to point out the truth. people don't want the truth from politicians. they want to be lied to and told it's not their fault. they don't want to be accountable for their own actions.
|
A friend of mine brought this up, and it's another point if you watch how he handles himself with other world leaders. Obviously this doesn't mean much to a normal joe, but body language in my opinion shows how you interact with another person, and can tell a lot about interactions.
"Not cutting in front of Putin and no power struggle handshake. We know who is alpha."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
