Trump Speaks
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 18:43 last edited by
@Mik said in Trump Speaks:
It's worse than that even.
I said that yesterday, LOL.
Oh, then there's this.
"These are my principles, sir. If you don't like them, I have others."
-
@Mik said in Trump Speaks:
It's worse than that even.
I said that yesterday, LOL.
Oh, then there's this.
"These are my principles, sir. If you don't like them, I have others."
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 18:45 last edited by@George-K said in Trump Speaks:
"These are my principles, sir. If you don't like them, I have others."
Yup.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 18:47 last edited by Mik 7 Jul 2020, 18:48
Sadly that lying bag of crap is a top contender for Biden's VP. I guess she's showing her attack dog chops.
It takes a lot for me to say that about a wounded veteran. But that status only gets you so far in my book.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:02 last edited by
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
-
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:20 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Trump Speaks:
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
Does your "attack the messenger" comment from Media Bias Fact Check invalidate the comment that Duckworth, and the rest of the media lied about
good people on both sidesTrumps speech? -
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:21 last edited by
WIKI:
"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
Also, Van Zandt leans left. Also, no one question the fact that National Review is on the Right politically, so pointing that out is meaningless. Unless of course you believe that if something comes from the Right it can't be correct. That of course, is silly. And lastly, he didn't say the information was false, he simply pointed out that the source leaned to the right. But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:24 last edited by Catseye3 7 Jul 2020, 19:26
@ George: No. It's not meant to invalidate anything. If she lied, she lied, no skin off my nose. Just pointing out that the pub apparently has a rep for jumping on messages of one stripe over another, and it behooves us to read a thing from more than one viewpoint. That's if we want the truth, that is. If we don't, then let us by all means glory in our picked cherries.
-
WIKI:
"The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
Also, Van Zandt leans left. Also, no one question the fact that National Review is on the Right politically, so pointing that out is meaningless. Unless of course you believe that if something comes from the Right it can't be correct. That of course, is silly. And lastly, he didn't say the information was false, he simply pointed out that the source leaned to the right. But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:28 last edited by@Larry said in Trump Speaks:
But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....Oh wait, what?
I didn't know all that about Media Bias Fact Check. If it's true, it's true. For the hundredth time, I'm not on the left or the right. Got that? FINALLY?
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:31 last edited by
When you read something printed by a left leaning news source do you check with media fact check also? Why Not?
Also, I don't believe anyone who tries to claim they're not left or right.
-
When you read something printed by a left leaning news source do you check with media fact check also? Why Not?
Also, I don't believe anyone who tries to claim they're not left or right.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:35 last edited by
I don't wear panties. Ask around....
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 19:36 last edited by xenon 7 Jul 2020, 19:37
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 20:09 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 20:29 last edited by
Nah. Hurts my balls.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 20:39 last edited by
-
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 22:48 last edited by@xenon said in Trump Speaks:
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
The Confederates believed in State's Rights. Remember, there were still people alive in the 1840's when a lot of this stuff started, that were well aware of the original intent and compromises of the Constitution. They felt - rightly or wrongly - that the Union had overstepped its authority, and that the sovereignty of their state overrode that of the Union.
-
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 22:50 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Trump Speaks:
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
Red herring.
I don't care if the publication is written in Hell by Satan's demons, did they mischaracterize any of Ms. Duckworth's remarks?
-
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 22:53 last edited by@xenon said in Trump Speaks:
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
One, they weren't peculiar values; many, many people had them, hence a Civil War. Two, both sides were still figuring out what the concept of "the Union" would mean to the country. It wasn't at all like today. Opinions were much, much more varied at the time. The country was far less cohesive. Differences among states were extreme compared to now.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 22:57 last edited by
I don't dispute anything you say, but I suspect opinions also vary more today than we're led to believe. The MSM portray a discrete set of opinions as extant, but probably there's more variety in the bars, bowling alleys and conference rooms.
-
wrote on 7 Jul 2020, 23:04 last edited by
I feel as though most people you'd meet out there would be incapable of surprising you with an honestly held political opinion. Which is to say that I think we're all aware of the landscape of opinions one might encounter. This is because we're all exposed to the same messaging. The diversity of opinion in the old days was because different people lived in different messaging universes.
