White House Correspondent April Ryan spreading FAKE NEWS about Trump

[Excon]

I'm sure his staff was,

Then you should understand how they knew.

that was hot stuff straight from Putin.

Speculative nonsense, which John McAfee casts serious doubt upon.

The point was, your point was, that it is "obvious" it was something the Orangatan remembers.

iLOL You mean knew of and spoke to.

He can't remember if Sweden was experiencing terrorist attacks the next day at a rally.

Irrelevant and mischaracterized nonsense.

Oh my gawd, again with this play acting about a desire for objectivity....this is so absurd when posted by you in your hand.

Good grief is right.
You were not and are not being objective.

I'm ignorant...because he brought up something I watched...live on air?

Holy ****.
Your position was one of ignorance because you did not know what he was referring to. How many more times do you need that explained?

I know he danced by repeating over and over his desire to meet the CBC....so what else you got? I'm still waiting for this "obvious" proof you have that he knew about these "pilfered" obscure emails....that many reporters raised their eyebrows about...when the Orangatan made his comment.

There is that non-objectivity again.
What the reporter knew or didn't know is irrelevant.

No, don't say that ...

For heavens sake, why?
It may soon be infatuation and I will be loven' liking all your posts. You are just going to have to live with that knowledge. :mrgreen:

 

[JumpinJack]

So since she cant read his mind she figured she would make an assumption and run with it whether it was true or not. close enough to fake news to me.

People who have been discriminated against in the past, hear what in the past have been code-speak words and meanings. She didn't make an assumption. She really thought that "we" meant the hard right Trump voters (who are white). I can see why she took it to mean that. It's logical that that would have been who he would have meant, since he at other times referred to "we" as him and his alt-right and hard right supporters (who do happen to be white).

I might have thought that, too, when I heard it, but I can't tell, since I knew the premise before I listened to the video. It's reasonable to think that's who he meant, esp in light of his comments about going back to the way things were in the 1950s, the good ol' days, before PC, and when you could hit people. But we all know the 1950s were the good ol' days mainly for one group: white males. They weren't so good for blacks or other minorities, or women who wanted to get paid equally, or gays. So it's reasonable for him to have been referring to his white supporters. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. He wasn't clear.

But it's not fake news because she did not say that that's what he said. She said that's what he meant. That's not fake news.

Fake news is a report that says someone said something s/he did not say, or did something s/he did not do. She didn't do that.

So, ironically, saying that she was giving fake news...is fake news. Since she was, by definition, not doing that.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Then you should understand how they knew.

I never denied the Oranagatan's clan might have known, but....that isn't yer point, that isn't the claim yer defending.

Speculative nonsense, which John McAfee casts serious doubt upon.

I wouldn't use him as an authority, YMMV

iLOL You mean knew of and spoke to.

huh...he would have to remember "it"....to be able to speak to "it"...or are you now claiming the Orangatan is an automaton too?

Irrelevant

Nope, speaks to memory, cognitive abilities. PS....yer the one with the burden off proof

.and mischaracterized nonsense.

Agreed, his Sweden crap was nonsense.

Good grief is right.
You were not and are not being objective.

Oh, there you go again.

Holy ****.
Your position was one of ignorance because you did not know what he was referring to. How many more times do you need that explained?

Where was there evidence that "I did not know" something? You keep piling up more things you need to prove, and you ain't werkin on it at 'tall.

There is that non-objectivity again.

Mirror mirror on the wall....

What the reporter(s) knew or didn't know is irrelevant.

So again, what did they raise their eyebrows about?

A: The "obvious" lil' o' bit of racism spewed by the Orangatan.

 

[Excon]

I never denied the Oranagatan's clan might have known, but....that isn't yer point, that isn't the claim yer defending.

Did you not see how it went down?
It was purposeful commentary.
So again, it is a safe assumption that he obviously knew.
And unless he went through all those released emails, it would have been his staff that informed him.

I wouldn't use him as an authority, YMMV

That's of no surprise.

Nope, speaks to memory, cognitive abilities. PS....yer the one with the burden off proofAgreed, his Sweden crap was nonsense.

No. It speaks to being informed and prepared to deliver. Not something he just happened to remembered.
If you do not think it was on purpose and in reference to what was provided, your position is also obtuse.

Oh, there you go again.

Of course. Your position is one of non-objectivity. You keep proving that.

Where was there evidence that "I did not know" something? You keep piling up more things you need to prove, and you ain't werkin on it at 'tall.

You did not know of the email until it was pointed out. Had you, you would not have deflected with that exchange between them.
You also did not even know of what rinoe brought forth.

So again, what did they raise their eyebrows about?

If they raised there eyebrows it is irrelevant.
She has a relationship with the CBC and Trump obviously knew it.

A: The "obvious" lil' o' bit of racism spewed by the Orangatan.

Racism? iLOL Not.
You again show your position lacks objectivity.
And such a lame move at that.
Can't refute what has been presented, so pull the race card. Doh!

Take your bs and push on.
Seriously, push on. You have no valid argument so this is going nowhere.

 

[SocialD]

People who have been discriminated against in the past, hear what in the past have been code-speak words and meanings. She didn't make an assumption. She really thought that "we" meant the hard right Trump voters (who are white). I can see why she took it to mean that. It's logical that that would have been who he would have meant, since he at other times referred to "we" as him and his alt-right and hard right supporters (who do happen to be white).

I might have thought that, too, when I heard it, but I can't tell, since I knew the premise before I listened to the video. It's reasonable to think that's who he meant, esp in light of his comments about going back to the way things were in the 1950s, the good ol' days, before PC, and when you could hit people. But we all know the 1950s were the good ol' days mainly for one group: white males. They weren't so good for blacks or other minorities, or women who wanted to get paid equally, or gays. So it's reasonable for him to have been referring to his white supporters. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. He wasn't clear.

But it's not fake news because she did not say that that's what he said. She said that's what he meant. That's not fake news.

Fake news is a report that says someone said something s/he did not say, or did something s/he did not do. She didn't do that.

So, ironically, saying that she was giving fake news...is fake news. Since she was, by definition, not doing that.

hearing something and making a determination that it meant something in code speak IS making an assumption. And saying that's what he meant when you don't know is fake news to me.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Did you not see how it went down?

Yes, many were aghast that the Orangatan would be so blatent.

It was purposeful commentary.

Agreed, he went low with an inference that all blacks "know" each other.

So again, it is a safe assumption that he obviously knew.

Yes, he knew she is Black.

And unless he went through all those released emails, it would have been his staff that informed him.

Again, yer piling on more unsubstantiated claims that you ain't supportin.

That's of no surprise.

So why try to impress me with it?

No. It speaks to being informed and prepared to deliver.

I said a lack of memory, this is a non-sequitur.

Not something he just happened to remembered.

He didn't remember emails, he remembered his old habits of discriminating.

If you do not think it was on purpose and in reference to what was provided, your position is also obtuse.

You have no proof, the obtuseness is your refusal to provide proof of your claim.

Of course. Your position is one of non-objectivity. You keep proving that.

I don't have to be objective, you are requiring a suspension of proof.

You did not know of the email until it was pointed out. Had you, you would not have deflected with that exchange between them.

No, because again, there is no proof that is what the Orangatan remembered, was referencing.

You also did not even know of what rinoe brought forth.

Again, a repeated unsubstantiated claim, without proof....ad nauseam.

If they raised there eyebrows it is irrelevant.

Nope, it speaks directly to the amazement that a POTUS would be so blatent.

She has a relationship with the CBC and Trump obviously knew it.

Again, if it was "obvious", he would would have said it, he luvs being obvious.

Racism? iLOL Not.

Yup, it raised eyebrows.

You again show your position lacks objectivity.

And you think your biased non-proof is objective? Good gawd! iLOL!!!!!!

And such a lame move at that.

You want to ignore the raised eyebrows, they thought the POTUS was "lame".

Can't refute what has been presented, so pull the race card. Doh!

I don't have to refute falsehoods, the burden of proof is yours.

Take your bs and push on.

Those words spell "failure".

Seriously, push on. You have no valid argument so this is going nowhere.

Yer the one with the burden of validity.

Failure.

 

[Excon]

Yes, many were aghast that the Orangatan would be so blatent.
Agreed, he went low with an inference that all blacks "know" each other.
Yes, he knew she is Black.
Again, yer piling on more unsubstantiated claims that you ain't supportin.


So why try to impress me with it?


I said a lack of memory, this is a non-sequitur. He didn't remember emails, he remembered his old habits of discriminating.
You have no proof, the obtuseness is your refusal to provide proof of your claim.


I don't have to be objective, you are requiring a suspension of proof.


No, because again, there is no proof that is what the Orangatan remembered, was referencing.
Again, a repeated unsubstantiated claim, without proof....ad nauseam.


Nope, it speaks directly to the amazement that a POTUS would be so blatent.
Again, if it was "obvious", he would would have said it, he luvs being obvious.


Yup, it raised eyebrows.
And you think your biased non-proof is objective? Good gawd! iLOL!!!!!!
You want to ignore the raised eyebrows, they thought the POTUS was "lame".
I don't have to refute falsehoods, the burden of proof is yours.

Those words spell "failure".
Yer the one with the burden of validity.

Most of the above is nonsense and any actual substance that you may have stumbled upon in reply has already been addressed.
The arguments made are not objective and that was just shown again.

All they are is deflection from the topic with bs about a side issue.

She was spreading fake news by making **** up. At no point did he imply white people as she claimed.


And yes, she does have a relationship with the CBC.

While I did entertain your deflection from the topic, all your arguments have been simply absurd and dismissible.

As I said.

And wtf do you think this is, a tit for tat session?

How about actually addressing her absurd assumption about what Trump said, you know, the actual topic of discussion? ​

It is safe to assume you obviously do not want to do that.


As for this deflective nonsense you keep going to ...

Again.

Yes, unlike her asinine assumption, [highlight]it is a safe assumption[/highlight] that it was obviously what he was referring to.
Do you really think it was just a coincidence instead? ​

While you left out the "safe assumption" part in what you quoted, you do not get to pretend like it wasn't said.



The argument made was of a reasonable assumption based on what is known (evidence), under that reasonable assumption it is obvious he knew.
Yet here you are absurdly and ridiculously calling for "proof". That is hilarious. :lamo


Then there are the even more stupid replies regarding a irrelevant tertiary argument of "raised eyebrows" and suggesting it means something there is absolutely no evidence, let alone "proof", of. iLOL

If you have an argument of how it isn't a reasonable inference that Trump obviously knew, that is what you need to be arguing by the available evidence, thus far you have failed.
Just as you have failed with playing the race card, but have succeeded in revealing bias.

Failure? Yeah, in your argued position and hiding bias.

Again.

Racism? iLOL Not.
You again show your position lacks objectivity.
And such a lame move at that.
Can't refute what has been presented, so pull the race card. Doh!

Take your bs and push on.
Seriously, push on. You have no valid argument so this is going nowhere.​

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Your argument, as you say, is based on an assumption of knowledge the Orangatan has. Assumption of what a person does is not "objective". Ergo, you cannot object with an argument that my argument is not objective because....neither is yours.

 

[Excon]

Your response is based in ignorance.

Not just assumptions like yours were, but reasonable assumptions, just as reasonable inferences may be made from the available information.

And no. Your position being unobjective has nothing to do with the objectivity of mine.
Those are two separate things, and you do not get to conflate the two.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ How about actually addressing her absurd assumption about what Trump said, you know, the actual topic of discussion?

It's an embarrassment. How anyone could take from that section of Trump's speech (and I don't like the guy or his policies) that he was referring only to white people is beyond me.

 

[Grim17]

It wasn't fake news. She said she was paraphrasing and that he "meant" white people. That's how she heard it.

I can see why she thought that, and heard it that way. She took it to mean "we...the hard right Trump voters who are against P.C.," who are white.

I don't know what he meant, since I can't read his mind, and since he wasn't clear. He may have meant hard right Trump voters (who are white), but he may have meant we, the average American (which would include all races).

But what she said is not intentionally misleading. I can see how she genuinely took it to mean that, and she SAID that she took his words to mean that. She did not say he actually said that.

Bull!

There is no way that anyone who listened to the entire speech and heard the words that led up to that comment, could possibly interpret "we" as being a reference to white people. A person would have to be inept at understanding spoken english or have the IQ of a grapefruit to come to such a conclusion.

What he said was based on a group of protesters that had just attempted to shout him down so he couldn't be heard by the audience. The word "we" was a reference to himself, his audience and his supporters (aka hard working Americans) who have the first amendment right of free speech, which those protesters attempted to stifle.

That's the "we" he was talking about when he said "We are the people who built this country and made this country great."

You don't believe me? Perhaps it doesn't fit your narrative? Well you can see and hear it for yourself... Just skip to the 10:30 mark:



It is a disgrace when members of the media, like that woman, publicly make such blatantly false accusations about a sitting president. It's race-card politics, it's reprehensible and it needs to stop.


.