The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jbombelli]

If it's true I would have a problem with it. But our news media has put me in a position from which I cannot trust anything they say. I can't even trust evidence they put forth to bolster their stories, so many times have they faked things.

I can't even trust the FBI, what with their BS dossiers, and partisanship, or someone testifying under oath in Congress, because of the many times they've paraded liars through their halls.

In short I'm not likely to believe this without some major convincing. And I mean MAJOR convincing.

Even Mueller is shooting down this "news" release

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/18/robert-muellers-office-shoots-down-buzzfeeds-cohen/

This is why I said what I said. Our media simply cannot be believed anymore. As far as I'm concerned they've destroyed every last shred of credibility they had with their TDS.

 

[jamil]

This is why I said what I said. Our media simply cannot be believed anymore. As far as I'm concerned they've destroyed every last shred of credibility they had with their TDS.

Not that the news media cares much about credibility, but if they ever decided to care about credibility, it would take a long track record of reporting things which turn out to be true, to be me to trust them again. Especially CNN. They've really been quite crappy. And I don't mind if they like to focus on anti-trump stuff as long as it's true. I wish they liked to focus on anti-Obama stuff. It is a service to the country to hold presidents accountable for how they use their power. But it's obviously partisan. They nuzzled Obama's sack for the first 4 years, and admired it from afar the rest of his term. I'd like to see them aggressively investigate every president. But dammit, it at least has to be true.

 

[d.kaufman]

Not that the news media cares much about credibility, but if they ever decided to care about credibility, it would take a long track record of reporting things which turn out to be true, to be me to trust them again. Especially CNN. They've really been quite crappy. And I don't mind if they like to focus on anti-trump stuff as long as it's true. I wish they liked to focus on anti-Obama stuff. It is a service to the country to hold presidents accountable for how they use their power. But it's obviously partisan. They nuzzled Obama's sack for the first 4 years, and admired it from afar the rest of his term. I'd like to see them aggressively investigate every president. But dammit, it at least has to be true.

I agree. "You must spread some reputation......"

 

[jamil]

Here is 3173 again. The part that I highlighted I took as a statement of your belief in the matter, thus I attempted to make a counter argument using available information from the internet. When I started, I actually didn't know what I would find but I considered it unlikely that you were right. I reviewed FAIRs methodology and sources of information and decided to go with their numbers for what was arguably the most important datum for the case. I was then able to find government numbers for action at the border and the effectiveness of a not representational section of the wall perhaps (since it is urban) but at least some hard numbvers from which to extrapolate. I couldn't get gov't numbers on wall sections in sparsely populated or desert areas because we haven't built any yet. The sketchiest number was number of illegals already in the US. There are no hard numbers, so I used a range of numbers from several sources.

For a quick and dirty calculation, I have a reasonable degree of confidence that it is in the ballpark. When you say that I was already a believer in the wall you were correct, but if you think that is sufficient call to question my calculations I must disagree. Believing that, when it seemed you said I should also make the best argument against the wall, my first reaction was you should lay off the sauce. I have no interest in bolstering an argument I disagree with, this isn't debate club. If, as now seems the case, you were calling for [STRIKE]the Russians to release the emails if they had them[/STRIKE] someone else to give the other side of the argument, I withdraw my objection

C'mon man. I admit the wording was a bit clunky, but tou could have given me the benefit of doubt that I'm not completely inconsistent. Why would I make a completely opposite statement in the same paragraph? So all this back and forth over a misunderstanding of my position?

About the calculations, I'm not doubting that they're accurate. I'm skeptical that they're the whole story. I'd like to hear someone who is not ideologically attached either way make the case against. The case in favor of the wall seems like it could be strong, but I'm not an expert in border security, nor illegal immigration, nor the economic and financial impact of illegal immigration. Hearing someone who is knowledgeable in those areas make the case against would be helpful. All I hear from the opposition is emotional arguments and vague assertions.

BTW, I'm not trying to make this a debate club. If you try to make the best arguments against your own conclusions, it's a good way to make sure your conclusions are true, and you're not concluding what you do because of which side you're on. You admitted that you had already made up your mind. So your conclusion wasn't from considering all the facts. What if you did try to prove yourself wrong? What if the evidence you dug up actually supported the other side? Would you change your mind? Or would you ignore the evidence and keep your conclusion? What do you care about? Having the same conclusion as the "right" side? Or having a conclusion based on the truth? The two don't have to be mutually exclusive though. Without considering all the facts, you can adopt the conclusion of your side and accidentally be right.

 

[printcraft]

Buzzfeed reporting that the president instructed Cohen to lie to congress. IF TRUE, whoa nelly.

[video=youtube;9Jz1TjCphXE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jz1TjCphXE[/video]

 

[bwframe]

How many times have the nevertrumpers said "...if true..." in the last couple days?

 

[jamil]

It’s like Lucy is reality, and Charlie Brown is the deranged left. Hoping this time will be different, this one has to stick, this story has to be real. And as Charlie Brown gathers momentum, charging towards the football, he swings his kicking leg as hard as he can, “This time I’m going to connect. Reality, THIS TIME I’M GONNA WIN! AAAARRRR—Ugg! Reality you *****!”

 

[Kutnupe14]

How many times have the nevertrumpers said "...if true..." in the last couple days?

Its a caveat, which means solid evidence is lacking. It is interesting to note, how readily Trumpskis are willing to accept Mueller's pumping of the brakes in THIS instance. I can only guess, that means those who are willing to believe the special counsel in THIS instance, will also believe him when his investigation is complete.

 

[BugI02]

C'mon man. I admit the wording was a bit clunky, but tou could have given me the benefit of doubt that I'm not completely inconsistent. Why would I make a completely opposite statement in the same paragraph? So all this back and forth over a misunderstanding of my position?

About the calculations, I'm not doubting that they're accurate. I'm skeptical that they're the whole story. I'd like to hear someone who is not ideologically attached either way make the case against. The case in favor of the wall seems like it could be strong, but I'm not an expert in border security, nor illegal immigration, nor the economic and financial impact of illegal immigration. Hearing someone who is knowledgeable in those areas make the case against would be helpful. All I hear from the opposition is emotional arguments and vague assertions.

BTW, I'm not trying to make this a debate club. If you try to make the best arguments against your own conclusions, it's a good way to make sure your conclusions are true, and you're not concluding what you do because of which side you're on. You admitted that you had already made up your mind. So your conclusion wasn't from considering all the facts. What if you did try to prove yourself wrong? What if the evidence you dug up actually supported the other side? Would you change your mind? Or would you ignore the evidence and keep your conclusion? What do you care about? Having the same conclusion as the "right" side? Or having a conclusion based on the truth? The two don't have to be mutually exclusive though. Without considering all the facts, you can adopt the conclusion of your side and accidentally be right.

Lolz. What you seek/advocate sounds desirable in the abstract but is oh so difficult in the realz. I'll see if I can borrow Diogenes' lantern for you, might help with the search for that unbiased expert in all the facets of the problem

Edit: Probably had the slider on 'mocking tone' a bit high on that mix. I know your heart's in the right place, and I have heard of these 'unbiased sources' of which you speak; I just haven't actually found one outside of areas of narrow scientific endeavor and damn few of them there

 

[d.kaufman]

Its a caveat, which means solid evidence is lacking. It is interesting to note, how readily Trumpskis are willing to accept Mueller's pumping of the brakes in THIS instance. I can only guess, that means those who are willing to believe the special counsel in THIS instance, will also believe him when his investigation is complete.

I offered you a link to Buzzfeeds own admission it was based on no factual evidence they had seen and all Mueller does is confirm that. I could really give a s**t what Mueller says as his investigation is all based on "fake news" as well. His investigation holds no weight in my book and after almost 2 years no evidence to Trump and the Russians. Investigation based on a fake dossier, funded by the Clinton machine, and being investigated by a team that is hardly unbiased, holds zero weight in itself. Couple that with an extremely biased media that has pushed countless anti Trump stories with zero factual evidence, and then when proven the stories are wrong and do nothing to correct their articles leaves zero credence to their reporting.

 

[nonobaddog]

How many times have the nevertrumpers said "...if true..." in the last couple days?

People that spread the "if true" type crap are just simpleton liars, they don't care if it is true or not, they just want to spread their lying propaganda and hope that it does some damage. I wish they realized how stupid it makes them look.

 

[BugI02]

Correct. If the time comes when they ever just can't avoid reporting on how the "if true" wasn't actually true, they bury it on page 6 and go right out and repeat the error. That behavior pattern alone is a major tell

 

[Kutnupe14]

I offered you a link to Buzzfeeds own admission it was based on no factual evidence they had seen and all Mueller does is confirm that. I could really give a s**t what Mueller says as his investigation is all based on "fake news" as well. His investigation holds no weight in my book and after almost 2 years no evidence to Trump and the Russians. Investigation based on a fake dossier, funded by the Clinton machine, and being investigated by a team that is hardly unbiased, holds zero weight in itself. Couple that with an extremely biased media that has pushed countless anti Trump stories with zero factual evidence, and then when proven the stories are wrong and do nothing to correct their articles leaves zero credence to their reporting.

It would seem to me that Mueller's "witch hunt," as the WH calls it, has found quite a few witches.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

A lot of witches were found in the Salem witch trials also.

 

[KLB]

It would seem to me that Mueller's "witch hunt," as the WH calls it, has found quite a few witches.

I would guess that if you did this to any incoming administration you would get similar results. People in and around politics tend to be liars and sleazy.

Of the witches you refer to, how many have actually been for collusion with Russia concerning the election?

 

[printcraft]

I would guess that if you did this to any incoming administration you would get similar results. People in and around politics tend to be liars and sleazy.

Of the witches you refer to, how many have actually been for collusion with Russia concerning the election?

Hey now, they did find suspected collusion between those 13 russian internet trolls having connections to russia...

 

[mmpsteve]

Hey now, they did find suspected collusion between those 13 russian internet trolls having connections to russia...

And a few tax cheats, but hey ... RUSSIA!!! ... got my panties wet ... not.

 

[d.kaufman]

It would seem to me that Mueller's "witch hunt," as the WH calls it, has found quite a few witches.

And nothing to indict Trump on. It was an investigation into Trump and his suspected ties to Russia. Once again all based on a fake Dossier. The investigation should be over and a separate one opened into the handling of the Russia investigation.

 

[mmpsteve]

Hey now, they did find suspected collusion between those 13 russian internet trolls having connections to russia...

Plus, at least one Russian company has showed up in court to defend themselves, catching the Mueller team offguard, where they begged for a continuance.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Its a caveat, which means solid evidence is lacking. It is interesting to note, how readily Trumpskis are willing to accept Mueller's pumping of the brakes in THIS instance. I can only guess, that means those who are willing to believe the special counsel in THIS instance, will also believe him when his investigation is complete.

My read is that he had too do so... the reporting was not true and Dems were starting articles of impeachment based upon the false reporting. Had they proceeded down that path and been exposed as FALSE CHARGES, then welcome to Trump's second term with a returned Republican House and increased Senate... i.e. a red wave in 2020. Full stop. Only reason.