• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump explains himself to Judge Jeanine

code1211 said:
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on the performance of Obama. .....

I'd like to see a new approach. It might be a good way to find a better approach.
Click to expand...

Consider leaving your Filter Bubble from time to time. I use Media Bias Fact Check and AllSides.... and dabble extensively at a wide range of sources -

The term was coined by internet activist Eli Pariser in his book by the same name; according to Pariser, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints and are isolated intellectually in their own informational bubble.
Click to expand...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://www.allsides.com/
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Consider leaving your Filter Bubble from time to time. I use Media Bias Fact Check and AllSides.... and dabble extensively at a wide range of sources -



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://www.allsides.com/
Click to expand...


I don't really know how your post is associated with what I wrote.

Interestingly, in your links, there are reports of the Comey "Memo". The way I understand it, the "memo" was more like a page out of journal. We really don't know the format since it has not been produced for review.

The reports indicate that unnamed people saw something that was reportedly composed by Comey. The unnamed people seem to be leveling a charge based on the thing that Comey allegedly composed saying that Trump had committed a crime.

This presents an interesting conundrum: If Comey witnessed a crime as the FBI Director and did not report that crime to his superior or act on it any way, then Comey committed a crime.

If the thing that Comey witnessed and subsequently wrote about in his little diary was not a crime, then he is free and clear.

Of course, then, Trump is also free and clear.

Neither of your sources carry stories from this point of view and yet I've heard this point of view reported.

Do you think this omission represents a liberal bias in you two watchdog sites?
 
code1211 said:
I don't really know how your post is associated with what I wrote.

Interestingly, in your links, there are reports of the Comey "Memo". The way I understand it, the "memo" was more like a page out of journal. We really don't know the format since it has not been produced for review.

The reports indicate that unnamed people saw something that was reportedly composed by Comey. The unnamed people seem to be leveling a charge based on the thing that Comey allegedly composed saying that Trump had committed a crime.

This presents an interesting conundrum: If Comey witnessed a crime as the FBI Director and did not report that crime to his superior or act on it any way, then Comey committed a crime.

If the thing that Comey witnessed and subsequently wrote about in his little diary was not a crime, then he is free and clear.

Of course, then, Trump is also free and clear.

Neither of your sources carry stories from this point of view and yet I've heard this point of view reported.

Do you think this omission represents a liberal bias in you two watchdog sites?
Click to expand...

You totally missed the gist and intent of my post. I encourage you to widen the range of your sources because many of your posts suggest you have a narrow range of sources. I gave you two sites that rate sources.

As you well know, Comey, until Trump fired him, held title as FBI Director. From where I sit, it appeared he had two bosses, namely AG Jeff Sessions and President Trump. Sessions has recused himself from Russian Meddling Investigations and Trump has stated he fired Comey because of the Russian Meddling Investigations. I don't sense any conundrum... and it makes absolute sense Comey would exercise discretion and diligence before sharing this information with others.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
You totally missed the gist and intent of my post. I encourage you to widen the range of your sources because many of your posts suggest you have a narrow range of sources. I gave you two sites that rate sources.

As you well know, Comey, until Trump fired him, held title as FBI Director. From where I sit, it appeared he had two bosses, namely AG Jeff Sessions and President Trump. Sessions has recused himself from Russian Meddling Investigations and Trump has stated he fired Comey because of the Russian Meddling Investigations. I don't sense any conundrum... and it makes absolute sense Comey would exercise discretion and diligence before sharing this information with others.
Click to expand...

Comey testified under oath in March, the month after the memo referenced, that he was never pressured to shut down an investigation.

There is no "there" there.

Clapper testified under oath that he saw no collusion between Trump and the Russians. Trump said he didn't do it. The Russians say he didn't do it. Nobody has any evidence that he did do it.

In truth, NOBODY has ever presented evidence that supports anything that the entire panic is based on.

This is a hyped political smoke screen that you are victimized by and you don't seem to understand that.

Disagree?

Produce the link.

Here are a couple that completely undermine anything that indicates that the line of thinking you would like to pursue is baseless.

Yates, Clapper Reaffirm: No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion | LifeZette

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbeJpKgyV4
 
code1211 said:
Comey testified under oath in March, the month after the memo referenced, that he was never pressured to shut down an investigation.

There is no "there" there.

Clapper testified under oath that he saw no collusion between Trump and the Russians. Trump said he didn't do it. The Russians say he didn't do it. Nobody has any evidence that he did do it.

In truth, NOBODY has ever presented evidence that supports anything that the entire panic is based on.

This is a hyped political smoke screen that you are victimized by and you don't seem to understand that.

Disagree?

Produce the link.

Here are a couple that completely undermine anything that indicates that the line of thinking you would like to pursue is baseless.

Yates, Clapper Reaffirm: No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion | LifeZette

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JbeJpKgyV4
Click to expand...

So when I ask you to widen your range of sources, you, instead, double down on RWN sources. I can't make you or anyone else leave their Filter Bubble or shed their partisan nature. Intransigence does not make for quality debate. In time, you might realize some of what I already know. Meanwhile, peace to you and yours!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lifezette/
 
Trippy Trekker said:
So when I ask you to widen your range of sources, you, instead, double down on RWN sources. I can't make you or anyone else leave their Filter Bubble or shed their partisan nature. Intransigence does not make for quality debate. In time, you might realize some of what I already know. Meanwhile, peace to you and yours!
]
Click to expand...

First off ad homening the source doesn't change the facts.

It is a fact that Comey testified that no one was i referring with the investigation. This is after the supposed memo.
It is a fact that clapper along with democrat and republican members on the intelligence committee have both said
There is no evidence that trump colluded with Russia. It has been that way for 6 months now.

So far no other evidence has come forward to say otherwise.

Yes we know that liberals can't leave their anti-trump meme.
Nor can they recognize actual facts that trump their meme.
 
ludin said:
correlation without causation is strong with this one.
Click to expand...

Yeah :roll: must just be a coincidence that a deep red district suddenly goes 50-50.
 
calamity said:
Yeah :roll: must just be a coincidence that a deep red district suddenly goes 50-50.
Click to expand...

not really as it was a special election it is pretty much known that voter turn out for special elections is always low.
there are not a lot of people that show up. a special election is not a sign of anything. now if that happened in a general election
I would take it more seriously.
 
ludin said:
not really as it was a special election it is pretty much known that voter turn out for special elections is always low.
there are not a lot of people that show up. a special election is not a sign of anything. now if that happened in a general election
I would take it more seriously.
Click to expand...

In red districts special elections usually swing even further to the red. They most certainly do not swing 50-50 :roll:
 
calamity said:
In red districts special elections usually swing even further to the red. They most certainly do not swing 50-50 :roll:
Click to expand...

not really. it depends on who shows up to vote.
your assertion though is a fallacy, however I am not going to derail this thread any further with your fallacy.

the fact is there is more than just what you said as the cause. special elections are low voter turn outs. this is a fact that doesn't account for possible
other factors involved. your correlation without causation argument is just that.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
So when I ask you to widen your range of sources, you, instead, double down on RWN sources. I can't make you or anyone else leave their Filter Bubble or shed their partisan nature. Intransigence does not make for quality debate. In time, you might realize some of what I already know. Meanwhile, peace to you and yours!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lifezette/
Click to expand...

Instead of stating your preference of news sources due to their superiority, why not post a link to one of your preferred sources that supports your fantasy with facts and named sources? You know, the stuff of ethical reporting...

So far, it seems this whole "scandal" is based on the journalistically unethical repetition of rumors and fantasy by the wanna-be's that would rather change the world than report the news.

Convince me that your sources are superior sources.

What is the EVIDENCE that you seem to think you have been provided through their superior investigation and reporting?
 
code1211 said:
Instead of stating your preference of news sources due to their superiority, why not post a link to one of your preferred sources that supports your fantasy with facts and named sources? You know, the stuff of ethical reporting...

So far, it seems this whole "scandal" is based on the journalistically unethical repetition of rumors and fantasy by the wanna-be's that would rather change the world than report the news.

Convince me that your sources are superior sources.

What is the EVIDENCE that you seem to think you have been provided through their superior investigation and reporting?
Click to expand...

Asking you to widen your range of sources does not equate to "stating ... preference of news sources due to their superiority..."

Please refresh my memory. I don't believe I posted any fantasies.

As for recommending less biased sources, I suggest you try Christian Science Monitor and PolitiFact.

The responsibility and authority of collecting and analyzing intelligence and evidence lies within various factions of the Judiciary, Legislature and Intelligence Communities. Certainly not with you or me. Clearly you don't like it, but these investigations can take months and sometimes years before reaching conclusions.

As stated before... intransigence does not make for quality debate. I can't fix blind partisanship.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Asking you to widen your range of sources does not equate to "stating ... preference of news sources due to their superiority..."

Please refresh my memory. I don't believe I posted any fantasies.

As for recommending less biased sources, I suggest you try Christian Science Monitor and PolitiFact.

The responsibility and authority of collecting and analyzing intelligence and evidence lies within various factions of the Judiciary, Legislature and Intelligence Communities. Certainly not with you or me. Clearly you don't like it, but these investigations can take months and sometimes years before reaching conclusions.

As stated before... intransigence does not make for quality debate. I can't fix blind partisanship.
Click to expand...

You have stated my argument for me. if you are talking about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election, you are talking about fantasy.

The investigation has hardly started. Despite this "scandal" being reported for months, there is no evidence from any credible source produced to date that anything ever happened that can be called collusion between these entities that influenced the election.

ANY REPORT so far is a rumor. However, those rumors are reported by the unprofessional and unethical press as facts.

The only story to report here is that the Democrat Party and many media organizations are spreading rumors and using the Big Lie to do it.

EVERYTHING else is rumor and conjecture.

I was amused that a reporter on TV repeated that Trump called "reporters" the "enemy of the people". In condemning Trump, he misquoted him. Astonishing. However, unsurprising given the level of accuracy we have been taught to expect.

Trump is constantly railing against fake news, a term he co-opted from the Democrats, and THAT is what he is condemning. He often says that some reporters are good and others are bad. That point is difficult to refute.

His definition of a bad reporter is one that spreads fake news. Again, this point is difficult to refute. Spreading news that is false is what is being done very often today in our press and it's a disgrace.

There is no news source that I am aware of in the US today that is not biased.

Due to this, everything must be vetted by the audience using one question: "If this is true, what else must be true?"

Relying on the news media to vet the news media is naive beyond reason.

The old saying about the Russian news media is now true of the American media and perhaps, it always was: “There is no truth in Izvestiya and there is no information in Pravda.”
 
code1211 said:
You have stated my argument for me. if you are talking about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to influence the election, you are talking about fantasy.

The investigation has hardly started. Despite this "scandal" being reported for months, there is no evidence from any credible source produced to date that anything ever happened that can be called collusion between these entities that influenced the election.

ANY REPORT so far is a rumor. However, those rumors are reported by the unprofessional and unethical press as facts.

The only story to report here is that the Democrat Party and many media organizations are spreading rumors and using the Big Lie to do it.

EVERYTHING else is rumor and conjecture.

I was amused that a reporter on TV repeated that Trump called "reporters" the "enemy of the people". In condemning Trump, he misquoted him. Astonishing. However, unsurprising given the level of accuracy we have been taught to expect.

Trump is constantly railing against fake news, a term he co-opted from the Democrats, and THAT is what he is condemning. He often says that some reporters are good and others are bad. That point is difficult to refute.

His definition of a bad reporter is one that spreads fake news. Again, this point is difficult to refute. Spreading news that is false is what is being done very often today in our press and it's a disgrace.

There is no news source that I am aware of in the US today that is not biased.

Due to this, everything must be vetted by the audience using one question: "If this is true, what else must be true?"

Relying on the news media to vet the news media is naive beyond reason.

The old saying about the Russian news media is now true of the American media and perhaps, it always was: “There is no truth in Izvestiya and there is no information in Pravda.”
Click to expand...

Your screed might influence the naive and a youthful, impressionable audience. Those of us intent on making knowledge based decisions recognize blind partisanship and intransigence.

Blow hard and blow long if you so like. Picture my smile at your rant. Peace to you and yours!
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Your screed might influence the naive and a youthful, impressionable audience. Those of us intent on making knowledge based decisions recognize blind partisanship and intransigence.

Blow hard and blow long if you so like. Picture my smile at your rant. Peace to you and yours!
Click to expand...

Then you feel that the current "reporting" being published and broadcast in relation to this series of rumors is both journalistically ethical and professional?

No sources, no facts, no relation to anything that has actually been proven and no effort to relate reporting to any of these foundations of journalistic process.

What we are seeing in all of this is a disgrace to intelligence and an affront to the profession of journalism.
 
code1211 said:
Then you feel that the current "reporting" being published and broadcast in relation to this series of rumors is both journalistically ethical and professional?

No sources, no facts, no relation to anything that has actually been proven and no effort to relate reporting to any of these foundations of journalistic process.

What we are seeing in all of this is a disgrace to intelligence and an affront to the profession of journalism.
Click to expand...

I assume you recognize you responded with a Loaded Question.

Sources have varying degrees of truth, untruth and bias. Let us aspire to progress! What have you done and what do you plan on continuing to do for the betterment of journalism? I recognize your proclivity to complain about the status quo.

Do you know a place with a reputation for unbiased and truthful journalism? If yes, would that compel you to maybe move there?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I assume you recognize you responded with a Loaded Question.

Sources have varying degrees of truth, untruth and bias. Let us aspire to progress! What have you done and what do you plan on continuing to do for the betterment of journalism? I recognize your proclivity to complain about the status quo.

Do you know a place with a reputation for unbiased and truthful journalism? If yes, would that compel you to maybe move there?
Click to expand...

I do not know of any source that is undeniably the purveyor of Truth with a capital T.

By sampling the various sources and critiquing them according the the normal and usual standards endorsed by the profession, we may be able to ascertain the reliability of the story presented.

When a story is founded on a report from another organization that reported something from an unnamed source, it is ridiculous.

When a story uses phrases like "raises questions" or "many are now wondering", I immediately dismiss the story.

This is not reporting. This is conjecture and rumor.

This not much different than any other consumer product. I don't buy everything I buy from the same source.

I don't really care that the news outlets routinely lie and routinely present their agenda driven opinions and rumors as news. I only object that they present unsourced, unproven, unfounded untruths as facts.

One of my professors in College noted somewhat sarcastically in the 70's that we should read the comics in papers most closely as that is the part of the newspaper that does not lie.

Not much has improved in any individual source, but the number of sources has expanded to include a wider range of the spectrum of ideas. it is up to the consumer to sort it out.
 
code1211 said:
I do not know of any source that is undeniably the purveyor of Truth with a capital T.

By sampling the various sources and critiquing them according the the normal and usual standards endorsed by the profession, we may be able to ascertain the reliability of the story presented.

When a story is founded on a report from another organization that reported something from an unnamed source, it is ridiculous.

When a story uses phrases like "raises questions" or "many are now wondering", I immediately dismiss the story.

This is not reporting. This is conjecture and rumor.

This not much different than any other consumer product. I don't buy everything I buy from the same source.

I don't really care that the news outlets routinely lie and routinely present their agenda driven opinions and rumors as news. I only object that they present unsourced, unproven, unfounded untruths as facts.

One of my professors in College noted somewhat sarcastically in the 70's that we should read the comics in papers most closely as that is the part of the newspaper that does not lie.

Not much has improved in any individual source, but the number of sources has expanded to include a wider range of the spectrum of ideas. it is up to the consumer to sort it out.
Click to expand...

You claim to critique sources according to the normal and usual standards endorsed by the journalism profession. Please enumerate and expound on these normal and usual standards.

I enrolled in college for the first time in 1974. Eventually I graduated University of Florida College of Business. I did not take any journalism courses. Perhaps you did? Where did you go to college? Did you matriculate? Did you emphasize a particular field of study? Your views seem very narrow to me.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
You claim to critique sources according to the normal and usual standards endorsed by the journalism profession. Please enumerate and expound on these normal and usual standards.

I enrolled in college for the first time in 1974. Eventually I graduated University of Florida College of Business. I did not take any journalism courses. Perhaps you did? Where did you go to college? Did you matriculate? Did you emphasize a particular field of study? Your views seem very narrow to me.
Click to expand...

I am expressing views on journalistic integrity.

I graduated from the University of Minnesota in the 70's.

Minor in Communications.

Majors in English and Art.

My objection to most "news" reporting today is the commentary that is included.

My focus is very narrow on this topic. The presentation of most national news has become an endless presentation of opinion and is driven by agendas.

Proper sourcing is a forgotten formality in today's journalism. Being first and being sensational is the measure of a good story.

The earliest and most flagrant (at that time) example of this is the Dan Rather 60 Minutes story, approved the CBS editorial staff, that was based on a lie and sourced to illegitimate, forged documents.

Since that time, this seems to have become the norm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom