I'm from Scotland, a country with a relatively reasonable population with relatively reasonable politicans. I know many people from right across Europe from Scandinavia southwards and from Portugal Eastwards. All are reasonable people and all of them think Trump is an out and out idiot of a man. I get why a lot of people in America would back him no matter what he does because politics in the USA has become so partisan it's more like two sets of football fans in a derby. In football, fans love it when their own players break the rules and scream blue murder if an opponent even looks like thinking about doing the same. That is not rational. Being a football supporter means so much of your actions and thoughts are not rational, it's emotional and as such it cannot stand up to reason.
Trumps supporters are the same. It's more like a fan base of a team and their support is not rational or reasoned, it's more emotional and you cannot reason with emotion. It think there's been a quite deliberate attempt over the decades in the United States to engender this tribalism because it guarantees supporters stay for life. No football supporter would change his or her team and when you conduct politics in the same tribal and emotional manner as sport, you get the same outcome. An unthinking, unreasoning populace, half of which will gladly, and vocally, rubber stamp every single thing their side does and who will scream down anything the opposition does. It's the antithesis of an intellectual pursuit and that was the aim of the right wing all along. They don't want people actually questioning their two tier system. It's quite incredible when you have the poor lining up to support those in power, people who hold them in utter contempt. The rich and elite are playing people like fools. They are the money and the power behind Presidents. It's they who pull the strings. The poor are useful idiots for those in power, and when they're no longer useful all you're left with is idiots.
Very astute comment. None of this would be happening if the US installed proportional representation.
I watched part of the Full Measure report you linked to, and nope. Sorry.
I'm not saying her show is worthless, but Sinclair owns a shit-ton of stations in the United States. What's worrisome is that Sinclair dictates what the newscasters say. The viewers are not aware they are watching info pumped out by a right-wing conglomerate. If you're watching FOX or MSNBC (not that the two can really be compared, but let's pretend), you know you're watching something right- or left-leaning. But as you mentioned above, "Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates." ABC, CBS, NBC: these are all supposed to be neutral, but the Sinclair-owned local stations are not. So people watching her show might not catch the conservative slant to her show, which there invariably is, since it's produced and broadcasted by Sinclair.
As for her "best-selling book," yeah, no. I'm a bookseller. Not only had I never heard of Sharyl Attkisson before tonight, I can assure you that her book was not a best seller in any measurable way.
I'm from Scotland, a country with a relatively reasonable population with relatively reasonable politicans. I know many people from right across Europe from Scandinavia southwards and from Portugal Eastwards. All are reasonable people and all of them think Trump is an out and out idiot of a man. I get why a lot of people in America would back him no matter what he does because politics in the USA has become so partisan it's more like two sets of football fans in a derby. In football, fans love it when their own players break the rules and scream blue murder if an opponent even looks like thinking about doing the same. That is not rational. Being a football supporter means so much of your actions and thoughts are not rational, it's emotional and as such it cannot stand up to reason.
Trumps supporters are the same. It's more like a fan base of a team and their support is not rational or reasoned, it's more emotional and you cannot reason with emotion. It think there's been a quite deliberate attempt over the decades in the United States to engender this tribalism because it guarantees supporters stay for life. No football supporter would change his or her team and when you conduct politics in the same tribal and emotional manner as sport, you get the same outcome. An unthinking, unreasoning populace, half of which will gladly, and vocally, rubber stamp every single thing their side does and who will scream down anything the opposition does. It's the antithesis of an intellectual pursuit and that was the aim of the right wing all along. They don't want people actually questioning their two tier system. It's quite incredible when you have the poor lining up to support those in power, people who hold them in utter contempt. The rich and elite are playing people like fools. They are the money and the power behind Presidents. It's they who pull the strings. The poor are useful idiots for those in power, and when they're no longer useful all you're left with is idiots.
Sharyl Atkisson has journalistic bona fides which are tarnished by two things: One, her anti-vax reporting. Sorry not sorry, but if you're anti-vax, I don't take you seriously. Two, her show is produced and hosted by the Sinclair TV Group, which is right-wing. Hence my air quotes around "friendly." I mean, she didn't ask any tough questions of the president* in that interview.
One: You may wish to revisit your opinion on whether or not she's "anti-vax".
Two: So, if her show airs on a right-wing network, that makes it worthless? And if she worked for CNN or CBS, (or only in an alternative universe MSNBC), would her reporting would be much more credible? Careful, your bias is showing.
"Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates. It also streams live Sunday mornings at 9:30 a.m. ET."
I watched part of the Full Measure report you linked to, and nope. Sorry.
I'm not saying her show is worthless, but Sinclair owns a shit-ton of stations in the United States. What's worrisome is that Sinclair dictates what the newscasters say. The viewers are not aware they are watching info pumped out by a right-wing conglomerate. If you're watching FOX or MSNBC (not that the two can really be compared, but let's pretend), you know you're watching something right- or left-leaning. But as you mentioned above, "Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates." ABC, CBS, NBC: these are all supposed to be neutral, but the Sinclair-owned local stations are not. So people watching her show might not catch the conservative slant to her show, which there invariably is, since it's produced and broadcasted by Sinclair.
As for her "best-selling book," yeah, no. I'm a bookseller. Not only had I never heard of Sharyl Attkisson before tonight, I can assure you that her book was not a best seller in any measurable way.
Sharyl Atkisson has journalistic bona fides which are tarnished by two things: One, her anti-vax reporting. Sorry not sorry, but if you're anti-vax, I don't take you seriously. Two, her show is produced and hosted by the Sinclair TV Group, which is right-wing. Hence my air quotes around "friendly." I mean, she didn't ask any tough questions of the president* in that interview.
One: You may wish to revisit your opinion on whether or not she's "anti-vax".
Two: So, if her show airs on a right-wing network, that makes it worthless? And if she worked for CNN or CBS, (or only in an alternative universe MSNBC), would her reporting be more credible? Careful, your bias is showing.
"Full Measure is broadcast to 43 million households in 79 markets on 162 Sinclair Broadcast Group stations, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyTV, Univision and Telemundo affiliates. It also streams live Sunday mornings at 9:30 a.m. ET."
Yes, thank you for that link. I did not watch the interview, but I did read the full transcript, which you helpfully mentioned was on that page.
Trump critics have no need to rewrite history to make Trump look bad. He does it all by himself. The proof is right there in this interview with a "friendly" journalist.
Air quotes around "friendly"? Obviously you don't know her reputation - or history.
Sure. I'm fairly certain Trump under-counted the number of times when he posted something erroneous on Facebook or Twitter.
Trump: ... "Every once every 500 tweets, you might have a mistake"...
She let that one slide. So ... obviously biased!
Sharyl Atkisson has journalistic bona fides which are tarnished by two things: One, her anti-vax reporting. Sorry not sorry, but if you're anti-vax, I don't take you seriously. Two, her show is produced and hosted by the Sinclair TV Group, which is right-wing. Hence my air quotes around "friendly." I mean, she didn't ask any tough questions of the president* in that interview.
Yes, thank you for that link. I did not watch the interview, but I did read the full transcript, which you helpfully mentioned was on that page.
Trump critics have no need to rewrite history to make Trump look bad. He does it all by himself. The proof is right there in this interview with a "friendly" journalist.
Air quotes around "friendly"? Obviously you don't know her reputation - or history.
Sure. I'm fairly certain Trump under-counted the number of times when he posted something erroneous on Facebook or Twitter.
Trump: ... "Every once every 500 tweets, you might have a mistake"...
You very forgetful Trump bashers will attempt to rewrite history in any way that makes Trump look bad.
Dear Leader doesn't need anybody's help to look bad, he does a tremendous job all by himself (people write whole studies about it!) See the rambling, it's-everybody-else, broken-record answer:
Trump: You know It's a disgrace what I watch from this fake news media and from some of these liberal institutions. Columbia is a liberal, disgraceful institution to write that because all the people that they cater to were months after me, they said we shouldn't close it. I took tremendous heat, you know this. When I ban China from coming in, first time anything like that ever happened, I took tremendous heat. Tremendous, like a level that I've never seen anything like it. And that went on for months. They were criticizing me, sleepy Joe Biden said I'm xenophobic meaning I don't like people, certain people. And other people said as bad as that or worse. And that was in January. And I saw that report. It's a disgrace that Columbia University would do it, playing right to their little group of people that tell them what to do.
Dale's point stands, however you look at it. You haven't added (or exposed) anything, merely the usual parroting of whiny Trump, the Uber-snowflake.
Any reasonable person should have learned by now, after one the exposure of so many liberal media lies and deliberate omissions. If you've even read 10% of their eventual retractions, the grudgingly provided corrections, or noticed them getting caught rewriting their headlines, then you would acknowledge that there's a lot of factual truth to the phrase "fake news". And a reasonable person could then find it in themselves to admit that the bias in most of the liberal media is REAL - and would be more skeptical about any story that casts Trump in a negative light.
Reasonable people would eventually arrive at the point where they realize there's a real problem with today's media. Are you not a reasonable person? Your failure to either acknowledge or defend the deliberate context omission of a CNN hack suggests either you don't grasp the concept of what impartial reporting looks like - or - well, you're just an unreasonable person. Other adjectives likely apply too. Of course your inclusion of derogatory images that have nothing to do with the interview also points to your logic failings.
Impartial journalism - it's something you should learn to recognize. It does exist. Sharyl Attkisson is an excellent practitioner of the trade. You really should watch the full interview. That's what a reasonable person would do.
Also - CNN thinks Columbia is a bastion of conservatism. There you go.
You very forgetful Trump bashers will attempt to rewrite history in any way that makes Trump look bad. Here's the full interview you won't watch. Because: Trump
Sharyl Attkisson: Full Measure: May 24, 2020 - Interview with the President
Yes, thank you for that link. I did not watch the interview, but I did read the full transcript, which you helpfully mentioned was on that page.
Trump critics have no need to rewrite history to make Trump look bad. He does it all by himself. The proof is right there in this interview with a "friendly" journalist.
You very forgetful Trump bashers will attempt to rewrite history in any way that makes Trump look bad.
Dear Leader doesn't need anybody's help to look bad, he does a tremendous job all by himself (people write whole studies about it!) See the rambling, it's-everybody-else, broken-record answer:
Trump: You know It's a disgrace what I watch from this fake news media and from some of these liberal institutions. Columbia is a liberal, disgraceful institution to write that because all the people that they cater to were months after me, they said we shouldn't close it. I took tremendous heat, you know this. When I ban China from coming in, first time anything like that ever happened, I took tremendous heat. Tremendous, like a level that I've never seen anything like it. And that went on for months. They were criticizing me, sleepy Joe Biden said I'm xenophobic meaning I don't like people, certain people. And other people said as bad as that or worse. And that was in January. And I saw that report. It's a disgrace that Columbia University would do it, playing right to their little group of people that tell them what to do.
Dale's point stands, however you look at it. You haven't added (or exposed) anything, merely the usual parroting of whiny Trump, the Uber-snowflake.
Typical. You post something slamming Trump, without full context. What was it exactly that he was asked about?
Here's the part that was omitted by the dishonest #fakenews CNN reporter Daniel Dale - AND YOU:
Sharyl's comment/question BEFORE his answer.
"Sharyl: A Columbia University analysis said that had the lockdown or social distancing happened sooner, the analysis said almost all of the lives that have been lost could have been saved.And then, a New York Times reporter issued a tweet that implied you are culpable for those deaths."
You very forgetful Trump bashers will attempt to rewrite history in any way that makes Trump look bad.
Here's the full interview you won't watch. Because: Trump
Sharyl Attkisson: Full Measure: May 24, 2020 - Interview with the President
Those of you who support him remember how he said he wasn't going to be playing golf, and he criticized Obama for playing. Does Trump's statement about not playing golf not strike you as inaccurate, if not hypocritical, or even a con? Why not, FFS?
In this forum, I expect we will hear something along the lines of support was based on certain issues, like The Wall, and everyone knew what they were getting in Trump. No bait and switch.
All of which, of course, does not address the question presented.
For me , it is rather simple: someone who lies as a matter of course, about things big and small, should not be President. That I agree with the liar on this or that policy cannot negate that nullifier.
It will take a long time for the body politic to recover from the damage caused by this reprobate.
One could say it is a prerequisite.
Hello. Someone want to tell me which president was not a liar, other than Carter ?
The familiar 
