• 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!

Could Trump be a traitor?

Hawkeye10 said:
Right...those of use who have some understanding of who Trump is have to forget most of that in order to buy into this story that has been drummed up by the propagandists in their attempt to drive Trump out.

FINALLY
Click to expand...

Who is Trump? You are the wizened one who knows better than us. Enlighten me.
 
Kobie said:
I'm just taking it day by day, yanno, one game at a time. I'm just happy to be here and I'm just trying to help the ballclub, and one day, god willing, things will work out.
Click to expand...
I like that attitude! :thumbs:
 
Kobie said:
Who is Trump? You are the wizened one who knows better than us. Enlighten me.
Click to expand...

The guy who wrestled up a Rebellion using his outstanding political skills as well as his outstanding communication skills as well as his outstanding understanding of America.

You're Welcome.
 
Kobie said:
The usual Fox news backers here aren't entirely wrong regarding Fox's actual news coverage. It's bad, but it's not THAT bad.

However, that's what, two hours a day? The rest is Jeannine Pirro screaming at me and Sean Hannity just lying his ass off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I agree.

I'm good with both Bret & Shep. Bret is damn sharp, but can show some bias, and sadly he's smart enough to show bias in a calculating way. But Shep just seems like a good guy, and I often find myself agreeing with him.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, Fox indeed covered it. In fact, they surprised me with their presenting all the angles. I suspect it later got off the rails though, come the evening opinion garbage ...
Click to expand...

Presenting the news from both sides is what Special Report always does... I've been telling people on this board for years that Special Report is by far the most centrist and least politically biased evening newscast out there. Hell, I've even challenged people who have doubted me to watch the show and then show me how they're biased, but thus far nobody has ever done so.

.
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, I think I agree.

I'm good with both Bret & Shep. Bret is damn sharp, but can show some bias, and sadly he's smart enough to show bias in a calculating way. But Shep just seems like a good guy, and I often find myself agreeing with him.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with bias - its really not that big of a deal.

What matters is whether a reporter is objective, not whether they are biased (all reports have some bias). As long as an anchor is fair to the facts, I couldn't give a damn what their political bias is.
 
Grim17 said:
Presenting the news from both sides is what Special Report always does... I've been telling people on this board for years that Special Report is by far the most centrist and least politically biased evening newscast out there. Hell, I've even challenged people who have doubted me to watch the show and then show me how they're biased, but thus far nobody has ever done so.

.
Click to expand...
Yep, I've got Special Report DVR'd every night. And I'm far from a political conservative or Trump supporter ...
 
Kobie said:
The usual Fox news backers here aren't entirely wrong regarding Fox's actual news coverage. It's bad, but it's not THAT bad.
Click to expand...

Special Report is more politically centrist than the nightly news shows on NBC, ABC and CBS. Not only is it not bad, it's pretty damned good. They cover all the news and do so in a balanced, unbiased manner.

.
 
MovingPictures said:
I'm fine with bias - its really not that big of a deal.

What matters is whether a reporter is objective, not whether they are biased (all reports have some bias). As long as an anchor is fair to the facts, I couldn't give a damn what their political bias is.
Click to expand...
That's fair, and I agree. Especially with someone like Rachel Maddows, who is highly biased, but also highly factual.

The problem with bias though, is in what gets covered. In fact, that in itself may be the worst bias.
 
Chomsky said:
In fact, that in itself may be the worst bias.
Click to expand...

I agree... That's something else about Special Report that I love. They cover ALL the political stories, regardless of what side it might reflect negatively upon.


.
 
Grim17 said:
Special Report is more politically centrist than the nightly news shows on NBC, ABC and CBS. Not only is it not bad, it's pretty damned good. They cover all the news and do so in a balanced, unbiased manner.

.
Click to expand...
I still would stop short of calling Special Report "centrist", though I may say the might be "centrist-conservative"? Or maybe, "moderate conservative".

I see them slightly Right of center.
 
Chomsky said:
I still would stop short of calling Special Report "centrist", though I may say the might be "centrist-conservative"? Or maybe, "moderate conservative".

I see them slightly Right of center.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any such thing as absolutely "centrist"... That's why I said that Special Report was "more politically centrist" than the others.
 
Grim17 said:
Presenting the news from both sides is what Special Report always does... I've been telling people on this board for years that Special Report is by far the most centrist and least politically biased evening newscast out there. Hell, I've even challenged people who have doubted me to watch the show and then show me how they're biased, but thus far nobody has ever done so.

.
Click to expand...

Well first, who's to say that news has "two sides" as your "both" suggests. There are often multiple (more than two) interpretations of events or perspectives from which to cover them. And sometimes there's really only one. We aren't entitled to a stock liberal and stock conservative viewpoint for every fact, deed, and happenstance. Second, putting lies and misrepresentations side-by-side with facts and truths just for the sake of so-called "balance" isn't some virtue. Fox has a major problem understanding this. Or they pretend to.
 
Grim17 said:
I don't think there is any such thing as absolutely "centrist"... That's why I said that Special Report was "more politically centrist" than the others.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. I thought that might be what you meant.

What I do like about Special Report, is their liberal voices tend to be moderate and sensible. Quite honestly, the entire show seems have a sense of proper decorum about it. Very old school. And I like that. I think that speaks to Bret.

That's not to say the debate between regular guests cannot become spirited, but it seems to always remain respectful.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The guy who wrestled up a Rebellion using his outstanding political skills as well as his outstanding communication skills as well as his outstanding understanding of America.

You're Welcome.
Click to expand...

1. A rebellion against what?
2. What outstanding political skills? He's alienated almost every ally we have; he's been far too cozy with traditional rivals; and his communication skills are pathetic.
3. What the **** does "outstanding understanding of america" mean?

I'm deadly serious when I ask for answers to these quesitons. I for one can't figure out what makes you guys tick.
 
Grim17 said:
Special Report is more politically centrist than the nightly news shows on NBC, ABC and CBS. Not only is it not bad, it's pretty damned good. They cover all the news and do so in a balanced, unbiased manner.

.
Click to expand...

It's bad. They're all bad in their own fun ways.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Well first, who's to say that news has "two sides" as your "both" suggests. There are often multiple (more than two) interpretations of events or perspectives from which to cover them. And sometimes there's really only one. We aren't entitled to a stock liberal and stock conservative viewpoint for every fact, deed, and happenstance. Second, putting lies and misrepresentations side-by-side with facts and truths just for the sake of so-called "balance" isn't some virtue. Fox has a major problem understanding this. Or they pretend to.
Click to expand...

When it comes to political news, sometimes there aren't two sides to the story, but how those stories effect both sides of the political spectrum usually are... That's where Special Report shines. They will explore the ramifications from many different angles.

As for "putting lies and misrepresentations side-by-side with facts and truths" you would have to give me an example of Special Report doing that, because no example comes to mind.

.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Well first, who's to say that news has "two sides" as your "both" suggests. There are often multiple (more than two) interpretations of events or perspectives from which to cover them. And sometimes there's really only one. We aren't entitled to a stock liberal and stock conservative viewpoint for every fact, deed, and happenstance. Second, putting lies and misrepresentations side-by-side with facts and truths just for the sake of so-called "balance" isn't some virtue. Fox has a major problem understanding this. Or they pretend to.
Click to expand...
I see where you're going with the bolded, and I do agree there's only one set of facts.

But I also very much agree there can be many varied interpretation of the facts, and what they mean. And those different interpretations aren't necessarily only spin. We all have our own unique way of interpretation of the events around us.

That's why I very much channel flip, from MSNBC, through CNN, to Fox. I enjoy trying to gain insight from varying POVs. Together, they often provide a more complete contextual composite understanding of the events of the day.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I see where your going with the bolded, and I do agree there's only one set of facts. But I also very much agree there can be many varied interpretation of the facts, and what they mean. And those different interpretations aren't necessarily only spin. We all have our own unique way of interpretation of the events around us.

That's why I very much channel flip, from MSNBC, through CNN, to Fox. I enjoy trying to gain insight from varying POVs. Together, they often provide a more complete contextual composite understanding of the events of the day.
Click to expand...
All three of those networks are crap. They're just crap in their own ways and to varying degrees. Fox is a legit state mediaesque propaganda machine for one party. They dabble in far-flung conspiracy theories and play it pretty fast and loose with facts. MSNBC leans very heavily liberal in their spin on/interpretation of facts, though they tend to work with facts. CNN is sensationalist above all else, though most of their personalities clearly hold Trump and his administration in low regard. But they also tend to work within the parameter of facts. You can watch their tortured play at "balance" when they focus their criticism on how many scoops of ice cream the president gets on one hand, then try to offer some "balanced" interpretation of why the president seems so obsequious toward VV Putin and precisely no one else--including veterans, gold star parents, women, disabled Americans, every single US Western ally, etc.
 
Kobie said:
1. A rebellion against what?
2. What outstanding political skills? He's alienated almost every ally we have; he's been far too cozy with traditional rivals; and his communication skills are pathetic.
3. What the **** does "outstanding understanding of america" mean?

I'm deadly serious when I ask for answers to these quesitons. I for one can't figure out what makes you guys tick.
Click to expand...
Hawkeye loses me too. But I do agree that Trump had the political chops to take on the GOP, then HRC, and prevail. That's the politics he was referring to I believe, and in that he is right.

Think of it: With no political experience, Trump walked through both well-established political parties, and all their money and all their media & power! With virtually no money of his own! That's unheralded in the modern era.

Now that's not to say Trump doesn't suck at most everything else. Nor does it mean I liked the techniques he used to win the election. But let's face it: The S.O.B. did it!
 
Chomsky said:
Hawkeye loses me too. But I do agree that Trump had the political chops to take on the GOP, then HRC, and prevail. That's the politics he was referring to I believe, and in that he is right.

Think of it: With no political experience, Trump walked through both well-established political parties, and all their money and all their media & power! With virtually no money of his own! That's unheralded in the modern era.

Now that's not to say Trump doesn't suck at most everything else. Nor does it mean I liked the techniques he used to win the election. But let's face it: The S.O.B. did it!
Click to expand...

Yeah, he "did it," with Russian assistance. It's patently obvious at this point.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
All three of those networks are crap. They're just crap in their own ways and to varying degrees. Fox is a legit state mediaesque propaganda machine for one party. They dabble in far-flung conspiracy theories and play it pretty fast and loose with facts. MSNBC leans very heavily liberal in their spin on/interpretation of facts, though they tend to work with facts. CNN is sensationalist above all else, though most of their personalities clearly hold Trump and his administration in low regard. But they also tend to work within the parameter of facts. You can watch their tortured play at "balance" when they focus their criticism on how many scoops of ice cream the president gets on one hand, then try to offer some "balanced" interpretation of why the president seems so obsequious toward VV Putin and precisely no one else--including veterans, gold star parents, women, disabled Americans, every single US Western ally, etc.
Click to expand...
I gave you a 'like' for the body of your post, even though I disagree with your opening sentence which I bolded.

So what televised networks do you believe are not crap?
 
Kobie said:
Yeah, he "did it," with Russian assistance. It's patently obvious at this point.
Click to expand...
Possibly. Though it was minimal in terms of influence. However, I suppose you can make the argument that only very little minimal help was needed, due to the tightness of the three or four states that swung his way by a slim majority (WI, PA, MI).

And yeah, Hillary sucked. Big time.

But still the guy pulled it off, and it's going to go in the annals as an unbelievable upset and achievement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom