jakee

Because it doesnt directly affect anyone in the US and most people don't care.

Except that was't why he was fired.

Exactly -which has absolutely sweet FA to do with the message Turtlespeed said was being sent.

I don't really see what the election results say about what is right or wrong. But beyond the headline result of the election, the Conservative party actually won the exact same percentage of the national vote as the two mainstream left of centre parties put together. What message does that send?

That's not a valid conclusion. The Conservatives and the Brexit party combined won 46.6% of the vote. Pretty much everyone else voted for a party whose stated positions were not pro Brexit. This was an election, not a Brexit referendum. But if you want to treat it as one, you'd have to conclude that support for Brexit has dropped.

I think the problem is that to Ron the only truth is biblical truth. Reality is malleable. Ron views religion as an absolute, and the physical world as a belief system. If you believe in Q, then Q is real. If you believe the Clintons use their foundation to pay assassins to kill their political enemies then that’s what they do. If you believe in the Republican message, then the Republicans can do no wrong.

Read post 21. See what you said. You absoutely, indisputably stated having a problem with journalists who are telling the truth. When you expect such unreasonable and impossible high standards from the press it's ironic that you become so slimy and dishonest whenever you realise you're losing an argument.

OK, you seriously need to get better at expressing yourself. There were 4 sentences in that post. Three were saying it is both OK and part and parcel of politics to use the press as a weapon. Only one was about Trump. You said you mostly agreed with the post. If the only bit you agreed with was the Trump statement, it's your fault you were misunderstood and you have no right to accuse others of pigeon holing you.

But in that situation, without any balance, the 'news' are simply mouthpieces for party statements. You've seen Ron's OANN links, right? They're basically a propaganda machine for the Administration because all they do is quote verbatim Republican statements with zero balance, fact checking or analysis. But with the above criteria you would call them one of the only genuine news outlets. It's utter nonsense and you know it, because you know politicians lie. So, politicians lie, we all agree on that. But most people don't have the time or background to fact check truth and lies on their own because they're not economists or criminologist or qualified in whatever subject is being discussed. But the news can get in experts to qualify the public statements of the officials. And the news can report these and still be reporting the facts - because they're reporting the fact of what the expert said, even if what the expert said is his opinion. But it's still factual news, right? You agree, of course. Now here's the rub - good journalists at the major outlets are experts in politics. They are qualified. It's their world. So, given what we just discussed and what you agreed to in terms of factual reporting of opinions... why can't they give theirs?

No it's not. It is what you said. You said it's not enough to tell the truth. You said you have a problem with news outlets telling the truth if they're not going out of their way to tell the exact same equal amount of truth about both sides. The very, very strong inference being you don't even see how it's more in the public interest to uncover the misdeeds of the freakin 'leader of the free world' - whoever it might be at the time - than some random members of the opposition party. It's ridiculous how biased you have to be to make that argument. Ermm, you agreed they were telling the truth in this scenario. Non-sequitur much? Ok cool, so they're entertainment and not the press. So why did you start this thread to talk about a non-existent problem? No-one is using the press as a weapon, they're just entertainers. Happy now?

You seriously have not said that. In your post 19 reply to Gowlerk you damn near say the exact opposite.

If one more person gets that wrong I am literally going to die.

Lol what? You have a problem with news outlets telling the truth? Get over it, snowflake. The 1st amendment lets you tell all of us what your political beliefs are. It lets you write them down and publish them so you can tell more people. It lets you write down and distribute what you think about current events through the lens of your politics. But you shouldn't be able to do that if you're part of a media outlet, even when what you're saying is true and accurate?

Doesn't matter. If atrocities fall within the rules of engagement then the rules of engagement are illegal, and we all collectively decided 70+ years ago that "I was just following orders" is not a permissable defence.

What is? As in your original example you can use the press as a weapon just by uncovering the truth about what someone has been doing. That's exactly what the 1st Amendment stands for.

But it is also religious in nature because they are connected to those other Muslims by being Muslims. No Saudi terrorist is angry at the US for aiding the Saudi dictators, because the Saudi dictatorship fosters the extremist sects the terrorists are part of. They're the people who actually like how fascist Saudi Arabia is. Yes, they're angry at all the other (equally terrorist) stuff the US and the west has done in the region, but not at what the US has done in their own country.

Right. I didn’t see anything in what you just quoted about them being angry at US support for Saudi dictators.

I don't think it quite works that way with Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi terrorists are more likely to be adherents to the state sponsored ultra-conservative and repressive religious sect who've just been radicalized a little further than they are people fighting for a free-er land.

I highly doubt that was the argument. Pretty sure they'd be saying it was political satire.

"A top Trump health appointee sought to have taxpayers reimburse her for the costs of jewelry, clothing and other possessions, including a $5,900 Ivanka Trump-brand pendant," I'm sure all of the Republicans who were screaming 'pay to play' during the Hillary investigation will do the same again now...

Right. Yeah. That sounds really fucking clandestine, doesn't it? Let me guess, you think Johnny Depp is a real spy? But regardless, you've gone from 'a very large number' and 'the most effective movement of your lifetime' to 'sufficient'. I'm just not detecting the same enthusiasm... Why do you care about staying in communication with people who are just pulling your plonker?

That’s the stupidest part of the Republican’s intellectually bankrupt defence that all of the witnesses against him must be ‘never-trumpers’ Who can therefore be ignored no matter what the content of their evidence. The biggest ‘never-trumpers’ who actually made their feelings known during the primaries became full blown Trump acolytes in the house and senate as soon as the votes were in. The only principle they’re actually interested in is power.

In the same way we don't know for certain that Donald Trump himself is not a deep-state Democrat plant sent to destroy the Republican party from the inside. Like, we're 99.99% certain, but not absolutely certain. But here's the thing - just because it has been said, does that mean you have to treat it as possible? How many? Ballpark figure. Do you actually have any idea? Why are the two connected? Do you feel that if you didn't believe Q that you would be letting Trump down in some way?

I thought that was a reasonable point. There are some instances that are morally questionable but perfectly legal (like charging the Secret Service full rate at Trump Tower to look after the sprog), some that are murky, and some that are downright unethical and surely as illegal as the example above. Trying to hold the G7 at Doral and telling Mike Pence to stay at a Trump resort on the west coast of Ireland when he was meeting people in Dublin, for example. (I mean seriously, look up Doonbeg on a map. It's hilarious.) Remember that you said that next time you look at the press thread. Maybe try and discuss something.

Here's the thing - you started this thread, presumably because there was some kind of point you wanted to make and presumably because you wanted to discuss it. Now you don't want to even tell anyone what that point was? You get why I'm laughing at you right now, don't you?