• 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!

Does the Right Not Understand The Game?

calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...
Maybe you are confused about the "game" what ?? 8, 9 months on the russian thing and not a shred of evidence presented ( lots of hearsay) Maybe the media is playing you ( and the left) cheers

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
Here's what gets me sitting on the edge of my chair. The Right does not understand that when picking a fight with everyone, you better be able to finish it. Trump picked a fight he can't close out. And, we see some of that with saber rattling, America is the greatest, bull**** coming from his ignorant Deplorables. They want to fight the world alone.

We can't win that. And, they are too stupid to know it, just like they were too stupid to know Trump cannot win when he picks a fight with the Establishment Republicans, the Media, the Intelligence agencies, the FBI, the courts, the Muslims, the Mexicans, Hillary supporters, Obama supporters, and liberals of all colors. Who could?

I know of another man in history whose supporters felt they could take on the world. It did not end well for them.
Click to expand...
And what allowed this man the rise?? O thats right pacifist liberals....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
Verified with disclaimers included when a detail or two is not 100% reliable. You all just don't like what's being reported is all. So, you try to dismiss it as fake news, hearsay, unnamed sources, or whatever. But the sum total of all the bad press is certainly spot on accurate.
Click to expand...

Does that include all the bad press on other than Trump?
 
holbritter said:
Does that include all the bad press on other than Trump?
Click to expand...

If it matches observed reality, it's accurate and good, even if some want to call it bad. Press had it right in 2003 when they called what was happening in Iraq an insurgency, even though Rumsfeld called it bad press--what today would be tagged as "fake news."
 
Partsguy57 said:
And what allowed this man the rise?? O thats right pacifist liberals....

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually American conservatives liked him because he was Stalin's enemy. Know your history.
 
woodsman said:
I get this type of thing has been part of politics for a very long time if not from the birth of our nation. That said, I believe it is now damaging our country and stifling any governance. I also believe true journalism has died for the most part and is now just partisan platform pandering.

There sure is an open spot in the news market for a standards based, fact based and investigative based outlet.

As for the leakers regardless of location, agency or political affiliation, the Queen in Alice in wonderland said it best, Off with their heads.
Click to expand...
Except in today's society people would still complain if the reporting didn't go their way. WE are not looking for truth, we are looking for bias confirmation.
 
radcen said:
Except in today's society people would still complain if the reporting didn't go their way. WE are not looking for truth, we are looking for bias confirmation.
Click to expand...


Yes, the truth in reporting, such a fickle thing, and sure doesn’t happen with the MSM. Just for giggles take a look at the trolling and spamming that goes on each day in the general political sub-forum on this board, I know you can count, what truth is present without the nonsense?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Hearsay means not adequately substantiated.

One person saying a thing that cannot be corroborated or followed up on is definitely considered hearsay. Two people saying it lends more credence, but again, anonymous sources beyond the reproach of true investigation doesn't automatically take what they are saying out of the realm of rumor.
Click to expand...

generally it means that the source of the information is not able to be questioned or cross examined.

example: (DA) officer why did you arrest the defendant.

Officer: the store keeper told me that he saw the defendant swipe an iPad.

Now that is hearsay if offered as proof of guilt. IT might be admissible if the officer is charged with false arrest because the officer is explaining why HE ACTED but its not admissible to prove the guilt of the defendant. Normally, the DA would have already put the storekeeper on to establish the fact that the storekeeper did identify the iPad was taken by the defendant.
 
calamity said:
Actually American conservatives liked him because he was Stalin's enemy. Know your history.
Click to expand...
I do know my history... just because you can cherry pick a "conservative" that does not change the fact of the feckless pacifists that were in power that did not stand up to evil allowing a monster to rise..... you are well aware of this, but chose to ignore as it does not suite your argument...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
They clearly do not get that when you elect someone like that, you're going to see him under constant attack, especially when he does stupid things to draw the fire.
Click to expand...

It is true that they probably did not recon with the level of irresponsibility the liberal media would demonstrate.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

Actually it is the leakers that don't get it.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

Anonymous sources were crap when Obama was president; outright lies, even.

Now, they're the gospel and shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.
 
calamity said:
Serious question asked in the Thread Title. As silly as it sounds, I get a sense that this may be the case though.

People remaining from previous administration, whose job it is to ensure continuity of government, the Right calls them "Obama Holdovers."

Reporters report information they receive from a source who overheard something worth reporting, the Right calls it "hearsay."

Media sinks their teeth into a story involving Russians having dubious contacts with the campaign advisers who are now some of the highest officials in the White House, the Right calls it "fake news."

A president picks a fight with every interest group, intel and law agency and media outlet who is not 100% on his side. When those groups fight back, the Right calls it a "witch hunt."

I seriously suspect that these people do not get it. In fact, they are not even in the ball park of "getting it."
Click to expand...

Theresa May complained that sensitive police photos that were classified, but shared with the US law enforcement officers were leaked by what you accurately describe as "Obama holdovers".

The probable reason was to make Trump look bad, but the actual effect is to show the party affiliation of the leaking agents dictates their actions even when that affiliation is in conflict with their oath to serve and the security of the country.

Our leaking spies are a disgrace to their oath, their duty, their country and their peers.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Well, I have an unnamed source that has some pretty damning information about a DP poster named calamity.

Without knowing what this information is, can we rule out that it is hearsay?
Click to expand...

Actually Calamity is correct in that regard. Unnamed sources may or may not be hearsay. Hearsay is information from a third, or fourth, or fifth party.
 
apdst said:
Anonymous sources were crap when Obama was president; outright lies, even.

Now, they're the gospel and shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

Right Wing Source: Obama gave me head in a limo

Left Wing Source: Trump likely to scrap Paris Accord

:roll:
 
jimbo said:
Actually Calamity is correct in that regard. Unnamed sources may or may not be hearsay. Hearsay is information from a third, or fourth, or fifth party.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Definition of hearsay:

hear·say

/ˈhirˌsā/

noun: hearsay

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"

synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
stories, tales;

informal the grapevine, scuttlebutt, loose lips "that's all hearsay, and I don't care to listen to such tripe"

•Law
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"​

There is no may, or may not, about it.

If those sources demand anonymity, their comments can't be adequately substantiated. They wouldn't be allowed as evidence in court, and the words would be nothing more than rumor and gossip.

Of course, the left's media partners don't operate that way do they? It's convict and destroy.

With so many in the alt-left throwing around the word "treason", it makes one consider to whom the word actually applies.
 
ocean515 said:
Not true.

Definition of hearsay:

hear·say

/ˈhirˌsā/

noun: hearsay

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"

synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
stories, tales;

informal the grapevine, scuttlebutt, loose lips "that's all hearsay, and I don't care to listen to such tripe"

•Law
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"​

There is no may, or may not, about it.

If those sources demand anonymity, their comments can't be adequately substantiated. They wouldn't be allowed as evidence in court, and the words would be nothing more than rumor and gossip.

Of course, the left's media partners don't operate that way do they? It's convict and destroy.

With so many in the alt-left throwing around the word "treason", it makes one consider to whom the word actually applies.
Click to expand...

I thought that's what I said.
 
jimbo said:
Actually Calamity is correct in that regard. Unnamed sources may or may not be hearsay. Hearsay is information from a third, or fourth, or fifth party.
Click to expand...

That isn't what calamity said though.
 
calamity said:
Verified with disclaimers included when a detail or two is not 100% reliable. You all just don't like what's being reported is all. So, you try to dismiss it as fake news, hearsay, unnamed sources, or whatever. But the sum total of all the bad press is certainly spot on accurate.
Click to expand...

When a reporter supposedly get told what a memo says by a person who supposedly saw it, that's not verified. No matter how much you try to spin it. The sum total of all the bad press is nothing different than what we saw at the Clinton election parties when she lost. It's like a kid who is throwing a tantrum in the store. I don't ignore it from other kids. I stand there and laugh at them. And their parents if they get mad. Sore losers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
jimbo said:
I thought that's what I said.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

Actually Calamity is correct in that regard. Unnamed sources may or may not be hearsay.​

Unnamed sources are always hearsay. There is no may or may not about it. Perhaps you were meaning to suggest something else?
 
ocean515 said:
You wrote:

Actually Calamity is correct in that regard. Unnamed sources may or may not be hearsay.​

Unnamed sources are always hearsay. There is no may or may not about it. Perhaps you were meaning to suggest something else?
Click to expand...

Must have not had my brain in gear. I'm not sure what I was trying to say. Probably 3rd party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom