Post by bWo on Apr 3, 2020 2:59:54 GMT -5
Apr 2, 2020 9:32:23 GMT -5 @ham said:
I said I was going to stay away, but as we can see below bWo is manipulative and gaslights as a means of a response. I only replied to ensure my name and actions are clear and that I help clear up any of is misunderstandings and point out his lies. I want to be able to have debates, to learn from each other, but this all proves how dangerous someone like bWo can be in a thread like this. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong if I say something wrong, but please, use sources we can both look at and don't do what he does and just make up lies or deflect to another topic. Truly at this point, to reply to him again would be silly of me because we're not pushing the conversation anywhere.Oh, you've returned. After dodging half my post and exiting stage right I figured you were gone. I was wrong. You're back, and trying to recruit backup by the looks of it too.
Not at all. You wanted it to look like the Washington Post was concise and to the point. Bland. Just the essentials. You post a story that favours Trump and they are "bland." It helps your argument.
"Democrats fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to remove Trump from office, as senators voted 52 to 48 to acquit him on the abuse-of-power allegation and 53 to 47 to clear him of obstruction."
One source said this:
"The Senate overwhelmingly acquitted President Trump on both articles of impeachment against him Wednesday afternoon following a brief trial, in a historic rejection of Democrats' claims that the president's Ukraine dealings and handling of congressional subpoenas merited his immediate removal from office."
The entire point was to show how the media puts spin on things, not the who, stop focusing on the who as your argument against this. You literally can't say that when you compare the two quotes that one is bland and one has spin. When I say focus on what was said you cry about the Washington Post and make zero mention of the rebuttal, that's the deflection and misdirection you do. You're trying to focus that I'm saying the Washington Post is a great, bias free publication as a means to discredit me and my argument to you that there's media trying to spin things. I've never said that, you put those words in my mouth. You've yet to tackle the argument itself you just want to talk about the Washington Post. The entire point was to show how two different companies take the same information and present it. Again, it bears repeating, it has zero to do with the who, its all the what.
Did Democrats fall short of the two-thirds majority needed? Yes. Did Senators vote 52 to 48 to acquit him on the abuse-of-power? Yes. Did Senators vote 53 to 47 to clear him of obstruction? Yes.
Did the Senate overwhelmingly acquit President Trump? Overwhelmingly isn't the proper word to be used, that's the spin, but the Senate did acquit Trump. Was it a brief trial? It ran December 18 to Feb 5 - 49 days. For reference, Bill Clinton's impeachment trial ran December 19 to Feb 12 - 55 days. I wouldn't say brief is the right word to be used again. And lastly, is the quote "a historic rejection of Democrat's claims" free from bias and true? No, because it puts emphasis on the Democrats losing, not to mention that a Republican did vote with them in one of the articles, so its not just the Democrat's claim if it wasn't an entire party line vote.
I like my news direct and to the point with the facts, I don't need bias spin on it. Do you see how one gave you the actual numbers, numbers that can be proven true? Again, not the who, the what.
You're still running around like a dog chasing it's tail. I asked you, "does the media present all the facts and let the public come up with an honest/educated opinion? Or does the media let their political bias/agendas sway their coverage?" You responded with,
All you've done since is agree with me. Do you even realize that? YOU ADMIT that the media DOESN'T "present all the facts and let the public come up with an honest/educated opinion" when you say,
Which is exactly what I was saying. There's nothing to "unpack" there. You "unpacked" paragraph after paragraph agreeing with me without even realizing it. You're arguing with yourself because I said something positive about Trump and your blood boiled.
You're still running around like a dog chasing it's tail. I asked you, "does the media present all the facts and let the public come up with an honest/educated opinion? Or does the media let their political bias/agendas sway their coverage?" You responded with,
"That is a bit to unpack"
All you've done since is agree with me. Do you even realize that? YOU ADMIT that the media DOESN'T "present all the facts and let the public come up with an honest/educated opinion" when you say,
"The entire point was to show how the media puts spin on things"
When I ask you where the essentials were during their coverage of Nicholas Sandmann you have no response.
You literally didn't do this and are lying.
First, you brought up Nicholas Sandmann as a means to discredit what I said about the media "trying". You use your deflection tactic to show your disdain towards the Washington Post by ignoring the topic at hand and move on to another topic that I had to answer your tangent about.
Proving you wrong is a "distraction tactic." That's rich.
Proving you wrong is a "distraction tactic." That's rich.
Second, all you said in regards to Nicholas Sandmann and my replies were the following:
The Washington Post. You mean the paper that smeared Nicholas Sandmann because he was wearing a MAGA hat? Did they "try?" Or did they get triggered by the hat and end up having to run an apology and are facing a lawsuit over their made up coverage?
You suggested the Washington Post was a credible source. You were wrong.
That's called lawyer talk. You know that. Spare me the drama.
Not once did you ask for "essentials". Then you throw a made up scenario that I had no response, why? Makes your lie seem more true if you embellish it a little?
Why is your defense to gaslight?
Gaslighting? I called out the Post for their bullpoop reporting after you tried to use them as an example to prove a point that was the same as mine. You didn't even try to defend them because A) You know they're full of poop, and B) you were too busy arguing with yourself over nothing.
Gaslighting? I called out the Post for their bullpoop reporting after you tried to use them as an example to prove a point that was the same as mine. You didn't even try to defend them because A) You know they're full of poop, and B) you were too busy arguing with yourself over nothing.
The Post was bland when it didn't fit their agenda. When they thought the story did, they amped it up. My initial question was,
Your response was,It isn't though. You've been running in circles trying to convince yourself that it is, but it really isn't.
Yeah, it truly is a bit to unpack because its not cut and dry because if it were you would have answered my reply the first time, you wouldn't have deflected it to another topic, try to discredit me, and make up a proven lie to get your point across.
That's the only circles I've been running around, is to get you to comprehend without being manipulative and to acknowledge what I actually said. The fact you can't even answer this question without your personal opinions or mentioning Washington Post proves its not easy to unpack.
Still chasing that tail.
Still chasing that tail.
You used them as an argument to make a point because you believe in them and now are saying they aren't even a credible source. You seem confused.
I am not confused. I've never said they were or weren't a credible source. Also, you're adding your own spin that I "believe in them", the entire point that is to look at two examples that present the same thing and how its shown. Again, not the who, the what.
You're agreeing with me. You're arguing with yourself. You try to use the Washington Post as an example (while arguing with yourself) and when I prove they're liars you act like it doesn't matter. You're confused alright.
You're agreeing with me. You're arguing with yourself. You try to use the Washington Post as an example (while arguing with yourself) and when I prove they're liars you act like it doesn't matter. You're confused alright.
"So you're telling me the coronavirus is ravaging the United States under Donald Trump the same way it's ravaging basically every other country in the world no matter how prepared they were."
The United States ISN'T OTHER COUNTRIES. You refuse to acknowledge anything huh? You see what they were doing in the Philippines to people who were out when they were supposed to be home? Did you see the videos of the police in india? Japan is one of the (if not the) most socially responsible country on the planet when it comes to sickness. How are they doing now?
But America should just BE DIFFERENT. And the only reason they aren't is Donald Trump. Him and his decisions only are to blame for all of this. Uh huh.
"You refuse to acknowledge anything huh?" What are you even talking about? I've answered all your statements and tangents since you've started replying to me. Stop gaslighting as a means of a reply.
I'm talking about what's going on in the United States as a response to you talking about the United States President and the coronavirus and your rebuttal is to talk about other countries? Seriously, stop deflecting, its beyond the point of tired. You mention Trump, I give my opinion on it, you then take what I say and start talking about some countries that have been abusing their citizens to show as what I can only assume in from how you've been replying is that he isn't a dictator who has been shooting his citizens. When I say "what's happening in our country isn't the same in other countries" is to show me an example of what's not happening in the United States by means of dictator and dictator like governments? OK?
And again you act like the United States should have some kind of forcefield around it but it doesn't because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump isn't the President of other countries. Guess what? They're getting slammed too. You'd actually accept that if you didn't have tunnel vision.
You wanted Russiagate to bring Trump down and it blew up in your face. You wanted his impeachment to bring him down oh so bad, and it blew up in your face. You want nothing more than for this Virus to bring him down now. You want to blame him for everything, including the behavior of billions of non-Americans around the world. AKA, tunnel vision.
And to mention your question about Japan is doing, they (as of this reply) have 2,384 total cases, 472 recoveries, 57 deaths. The United States currently have 215,357 total cases, 8,878 recoveries, 5,113 deaths. Was this your intention to mention a country doing better than the United States numerically to get at my opinion that I don't think Trump has been doing the best job he could with the coronavirus? Thanks for backing that up, I guess?
And again you act like the United States should have some kind of forcefield around it but it doesn't because of Donald Trump. Donald Trump isn't the President of other countries. Guess what? They're getting slammed too. You'd actually accept that if you didn't have tunnel vision.
You wanted Russiagate to bring Trump down and it blew up in your face. You wanted his impeachment to bring him down oh so bad, and it blew up in your face. You want nothing more than for this Virus to bring him down now. You want to blame him for everything, including the behavior of billions of non-Americans around the world. AKA, tunnel vision.
And to mention your question about Japan is doing, they (as of this reply) have 2,384 total cases, 472 recoveries, 57 deaths. The United States currently have 215,357 total cases, 8,878 recoveries, 5,113 deaths. Was this your intention to mention a country doing better than the United States numerically to get at my opinion that I don't think Trump has been doing the best job he could with the coronavirus? Thanks for backing that up, I guess?
Do you think Trump was going to get Americans to behave like the people in Japan?
Heroes and Martyrs ignoring what I say again. My heart's already still because I was expecting it.
Two sentences. Two sentences and you contradict yourself from one to the next. LITERALLY. "I haven't ignored anything you've said" ……. "The only time I was proven to have ignored you."
Tell me again how you're not confused. You don't even know what you're saying from one sentence to the next.
"The idiots at spring break are Trump's fault? The people going to parks, parties, and other gatherings are Trump's fault? People not washing their hands, that's Trump's fault? The virus being new, easily spread, impossible in cases to spot. That's Trump's fault? People around the world not taking precautions is of course Donald Trump's Fault." Yes, he poorly handled this, he could have acted better and/or faster and we would have less lives lost. Read his comments that he made in the timeline below and you tell me with a straight face he did the best job he could and we don't put any blame on him.
"Yes." Hahahaha. People around the world not taking precautions is Donald Trump's fault. You do realize you just said that right? Your hatred of Donald Trump has you saying that HE is responsible for the actions of billions of people around the world. You don't see how your opinions are questionable when you say things like that?
I wasn't talking about people around the world, I'm talking about his handling of it in the United States. I never implied he was responsible for "the actions of billions of people around the world", that's you putting words in my mouth to make your narrative true so you can use that as a means to say my opinions are questionable. Again, stop gaslighting.
I'm "putting words in your mouth" yet right there in your own post 3 paragraphs up you say "yes" when I asked you if Trump was responsible for the actions of billions of people around the world. You appear to be falling apart. Maybe some of that back up you were looking for will show up and give you a hand.
I don't know how to quote so I shortened that to make it look like less of a clusterf*ck.
You're going to have to reach further than that. I clearly don't know how to quote and was trying to shorten things up. I even complemented you in another post in THIS THREAD for being able to carve through it. Nice try though.
What I find interesting about your timeline is the complete lack of coverage of actions that were taken. Did he suspend air travel from China? When was that? I know he did but the timeline didn't mention it. Did he cut down air travel from Europe? Wasn't mentioned in the timeline. Stimulus package? No mention of it. Shouldn't a timeline of events include both sides of the coin? Or were facts like those not pertinent to the situation?
The previous thing I quoted was literally you changing the context of something to make it better for you. I always presented it as his comments when I said "Read his comments that he made in the timeline below". I presented it as his comments and questioned if you thought he's doing a good job, his comments are very telling. If you want me to take his actions that Nivro pointed out, along with my comments I've pointed out to make it easier for you, then that will take some time. Maybe someone else can pick up that task in the meantime?
Yes, and you choose comments that are going to make him look like a dumbass. And he did in a lot of them, but they were CLEARLY one-sided. Or do you believe that through that eeeeeennnnnntttttiiiiiirrrrreeeeeee timeline Donald Trump didn't say anything positive? How many hours has he spent at that podium? Yet you post a handful of comments and act like that's an accurate representation of his handling of things.
That's the kind of bias reporting/opinions I would expect to see in the Washington Post. Oh that's right. You read the Washington Post. Hmm.
Yes, and you choose comments that are going to make him look like a dumbass. And he did in a lot of them, but they were CLEARLY one-sided. Or do you believe that through that eeeeeennnnnntttttiiiiiirrrrreeeeeee timeline Donald Trump didn't say anything positive? How many hours has he spent at that podium? Yet you post a handful of comments and act like that's an accurate representation of his handling of things.
That's the kind of bias reporting/opinions I would expect to see in the Washington Post. Oh that's right. You read the Washington Post. Hmm.
I'd ask who ever does, include the days that he:
Looking for backup again?
Looking for backup again?
Went golfing:
Jan 18th at West Palm Beach
Feb 1st at West Palm Beach
Feb 15th at West Palm Beach
Mar 7th at West Palm Beach
Mar 8th at West Palm Beach
You cover hours out of 5 days out of how many days in how many months? That's the kind of bias reporting/opinion I would expect to see in the Washingt……..
Jan 18th at West Palm Beach
Feb 1st at West Palm Beach
Feb 15th at West Palm Beach
Mar 7th at West Palm Beach
Mar 8th at West Palm Beach
You cover hours out of 5 days out of how many days in how many months? That's the kind of bias reporting/opinion I would expect to see in the Washingt……..
Held rallies:
Jan 9 in Toledo, Ohio
Jan 14 in Milwaukee
Jan 28 in New Jersey
Jan 30 in Des Mones Iowa
Feb 10 in New Hampshire
Feb 19 in Phoenix Arizona
Feb 20 in Colorado Springs, Colorado
Feb 21 in Las Vegas Nevada
Feb 28 in Charleston South Carolina - While Trump was at this rally, he referred to the Coronavirus as a hoax by the Democrats.
Holding rallies that are covered by the media and he speaks about COVID. Terrible of him. And you understand fully what he said about the "democrats new hoax." Why would he call it a "hoax from the Democrats" if he believed the virus didn't exist like you're suggesting? Was he suggesting that the democrats were the ones spreading rumours of a deadly new virus? There were Democrats in China spreading lies? Are you actually going to go online and pretend to be that naïve?
Jan 14 in Milwaukee
Jan 28 in New Jersey
Jan 30 in Des Mones Iowa
Feb 10 in New Hampshire
Feb 19 in Phoenix Arizona
Feb 20 in Colorado Springs, Colorado
Feb 21 in Las Vegas Nevada
Feb 28 in Charleston South Carolina - While Trump was at this rally, he referred to the Coronavirus as a hoax by the Democrats.
Holding rallies that are covered by the media and he speaks about COVID. Terrible of him. And you understand fully what he said about the "democrats new hoax." Why would he call it a "hoax from the Democrats" if he believed the virus didn't exist like you're suggesting? Was he suggesting that the democrats were the ones spreading rumours of a deadly new virus? There were Democrats in China spreading lies? Are you actually going to go online and pretend to be that naïve?
Also, I also ask that people take the list that Nivro provided, which looks similar to the one Trump posted on his own website and use that as a means to fact check everything. There's some things that I can't quite back up just yet, like it says:
"February 26: President Trump discussed coronavirus containment efforts with Indian PM Modi and updated the press on his Administration’s containment efforts in the U.S. during his state visit to India."
The only things I can find are that he went to India on the 24th & 25th. And on the 26th he was in the U.S. giving a press conference. Now according to the whitehouse.gov transcription of this conference, the only thing I can find he mentions about Modi is the following:
But I should trust a timeline that's laid out because it includes actions? Including this example that seems far from true?
Looking for backup again huh?
Q As far as your trip to India, Mr. President, where do we go from here as far as India-U.S. relations are concerned?
And also, Mr. President, you are very famous in India, and Prime Minister Modi is very famous in America. What is the future? And the Indian American community is with you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we won’t talk too much about that other than I just got back. A long flight. It’s a long flight. He’s a great gentleman, a great leader. It’s an incredible country. We were treated very, very well, and we really enjoyed it.
A lot of tremendous progress was made in terms of relationship. Our relationship with India is extraordinary right now. And we’re going to be doing a lot of business with India. They’re sending billions and billions of dollars now to the United States.
But we’d rather talk about this right now.
And also, Mr. President, you are very famous in India, and Prime Minister Modi is very famous in America. What is the future? And the Indian American community is with you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we won’t talk too much about that other than I just got back. A long flight. It’s a long flight. He’s a great gentleman, a great leader. It’s an incredible country. We were treated very, very well, and we really enjoyed it.
A lot of tremendous progress was made in terms of relationship. Our relationship with India is extraordinary right now. And we’re going to be doing a lot of business with India. They’re sending billions and billions of dollars now to the United States.
But we’d rather talk about this right now.
Looking for backup again huh?
The tap dance continues.
Heading back to your safe space are you? The tap dance continues.