Every week, your party finds new ways to alienate voters.
I cannot wait for the midterms.
-
81
-
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
This gets back to my original point.
As you say, government can be very good at determining truth within an area of focus. But for this board, we don't know what the area of focus is.
Until we know more about what the board actually does and what its powers are, there is no reason to be worried about it.
So we have a disinformation board led by a lady who has known to lie in the past and EVERY single appointee will be one who is liberal. You don't see a problem with that?
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
09 -
JustMe22 wrote:
I want Biden to succeed as much as you do...but the optics on this are terrible.
I agree. "Disinformation Board" is a stupid name.
15 -
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
So we have a disinformation board led by a lady who has known to lie in the past and EVERY single appointee will be one who is liberal. You don't see a problem with that?
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
No dummy, the very fact that the senile POTUS wants an official propaganda dept is ludicrous. This is Cuban, Venezuelan, CCP & North Korea style practices. You are beyond tone deaf. Take the "L" and move on.
81 -
Fat hurts wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
I am answering this question only because I am embarrassed for you (but I think you are a good guy). In the case of the intelligence agencies, they are indeed in a better position than others to attempt to determine what is true within their area of focus.
The fact that you asked this question provides further evidence that you to not understand what I posted earlier.
This gets back to my original point.
As you say, government can be very good at determining truth within an area of focus. But for this board, we don't know what the area of focus is.
Until we know more about what the board actually does and what its powers are, there is no reason to be worried about it.
Please see my earlier post in reply to "Oh?":
A few things:
1) Determining what is true, beyond those whom you listed, is clearly the job of scientists in general. Science is the on-going search for truth.
2) I think that the name of the board (Disinformation Governance Board) makes people unnecessarily nervous about it. If, in fact, it had the charter of policing all "speech" in
all its forms then it would be an odd mix of scary and nutty. But its actual charter seems to be much narrower - focusing on countering Russian propaganda as well as that coming from human smugglers. Should we be against that? I'm not so sure.The government played a huge role in fighting against the endless lies of the tobacco industry for decades. Was that role a terrible mistake? Did it lead to some Orwellian
nightmare? Not as far as I can see. Is this "Disinformation Governance Board" something quite different, or does it just have an unfortunately chosen name (terribly chosen names being a Democratic Party specialty)?13 -
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
No dummy, the very fact that the senile POTUS wants an official propaganda dept is ludicrous. This is Cuban, Venezuelan, CCP & North Korea style practices. You are beyond tone deaf. Take the "L" and move on.
No one has ever taken an "L" when in debate with you.
Ever.
08 -
Really is terrifying that the 'conservatives' can barely write a truthful sentence. They are no better than the Red Guards or the Bolsheviks or the Nazis. Existing on lies and misinformation.
We are well and truly doomed.
19 -
Real Obvi wrote:
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
No dummy, the very fact that the senile POTUS wants an official propaganda dept is ludicrous. This is Cuban, Venezuelan, CCP & North Korea style practices. You are beyond tone deaf. Take the "L" and move on.
No one has ever taken an "L" when in debate with you.
Ever.
That's because fools like you refuse to admit defeat.
61 -
carmine9 wrote:
nonequals wrote:
You know the (long) lists that would and have been given over and over again in reply to this question. So why ask it? It's not a real conversation. It's disingenuous, and just going around in circles.
"We" aren't going to convince you, and "you" aren't going to convince us. But we're stupid enough (all of us) to continue to waste our time trying. Really pretty strange and pathetic for ALL of us, I think.
But as mentioned before, I really would be pleased to have a thread where up-is-down Trumpers didn't speak. And maybe the Trumpers think the same about the Biden-isn't-the-antichrist crowd. And neither of those stances are necessarily close-minded. They're just "anti-talking-to-walls," I guess.
Ah. The old I already answered that lie.
Lame as hell. I've never seen CLOSE to a decent defense from any of you Trumpers for why Trump's Top 5 or 10 of clearly disqualifying actions/comments were OK. You can't do it. So you just pretend that the alternative is worse. Just plain stupid and pathetic and destructive.
06 -
Clown World Resident wrote:
nonequals wrote:
And by the way, imagine if your silly, narrow "thread title" crap was followed, and all of this discussion was in the "right" thread. Newflash: Your non-arguments would still s*** 100% as bad. It's really not about thread titles, moran.
Let me simplify for you:
Is your post about Trump, Trumpism, Trumpers, Trumpology, or Trumpificationism? Post in the Trump thread
Is your post about Biden? -> Post in Biden thread
Is your post just whining and hurling insults at people? -> Post in another thread, or consider not posting it
It's pretty bad when you guys have set up a difficult question: What is more stupid:
1) Continuing to support Trump? (regardless of your denials)
2) Continue to vainly try to shape the "allowed" words/topics on this thread? You've noticed it doesn't work, right? You're getting a clear FO, you know that? As you should.
Maybe start a "We think that Biden and/or Dems are the Anti-Christ" thread and you'll get a more Trumpers-only crowd? Until then, again, FO.
04 -
nonequals wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Ah. The old I already answered that lie.
Lame as hell. I've never seen CLOSE to a decent defense from any of you Trumpers for why Trump's Top 5 or 10 of clearly disqualifying actions/comments were OK. You can't do it. So you just pretend that the alternative is worse. Just plain stupid and pathetic and destructive.
I know you weren't talking to me...but try and look at it this way: which would you rather have...a grandfatherly President who tries as hard as he can not to offend people or an a-hole President who doesn't care who he offends?
It's a trick question. I don't care how my President decides to convey their personality. I care way more about the policies that President crafts, whether they are effective, and how those policies play out.
80 -
carmine9 wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Part of the job is indeed disinformation.
But most of it is determining what is true and reporting that to other parts of government who need to know what is going on.
Used to be.
Now they are run by political loyalists. Tell the truth and you get fired
I know this guy isn't worth it, but it is SUCH a good example of dull people taking a reasonable idea and making a complete mess of it.
"Be skeptical of your government."
Turns into, "Don't trust ANYTHING that your government does." In this case, the intelligence agencies staffed with career professionals that you have no good basis for thinking are all corrupt and/or completely incapable of pushing back against higher ups.
Extrapolating, if you can't trust America's FBI or CIA or DoD or DHS, etc., I can't imagine that you can trust any OTHER countries' equivalent agencies, of course.
And you OBVIOUSLY can't trust the MSM. Ditto CDC/FDA/NIH/thousands of doctors and scientists on a kinda important thing that recently happened.
And so you trust who for your info? Your uncle? Your FB friends? Random websites employing folks without a shred of journalistic ethics? Any politician in the RIGHT tribe? The fat orange guy who LITERALLY tells you to believe him and not what you see and hear?
YEP !!! A thousand times "YEP" !!
Because you're a MASSIVE moran. And yet think you're so much more.
06 -
nonequals wrote:
Clown World Resident wrote:
Let me simplify for you:
Is your post about Trump, Trumpism, Trumpers, Trumpology, or Trumpificationism? Post in the Trump thread
Is your post about Biden? -> Post in Biden thread
Is your post just whining and hurling insults at people? -> Post in another thread, or consider not posting it
It's pretty bad when you guys have set up a difficult question: What is more stupid:
1) Continuing to support Trump? (regardless of your denials)
2) Continue to vainly try to shape the "allowed" words/topics on this thread? You've noticed it doesn't work, right? You're getting a clear FO, you know that? As you should.
Maybe start a "We think that Biden and/or Dems are the Anti-Christ" thread and you'll get a more Trumpers-only crowd? Until then, again, FO.
I'm only trying to help you find the right thread. You've noticed nobody reads your unhinged rants, right?
90 -
Clown World Resident wrote:
nonequals wrote:
It's pretty bad when you guys have set up a difficult question: What is more stupid:
1) Continuing to support Trump? (regardless of your denials)
2) Continue to vainly try to shape the "allowed" words/topics on this thread? You've noticed it doesn't work, right? You're getting a clear FO, you know that? As you should.
Maybe start a "We think that Biden and/or Dems are the Anti-Christ" thread and you'll get a more Trumpers-only crowd? Until then, again, FO.
I'm only trying to help you find the right thread. You've noticed nobody reads your unhinged rants, right?
"Unhinged rants" = You couldn't make the slightest objective dent in any of my arguments if your life depended on it.
But sure, call it that.
08 -
Now it begins:
40 -
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
No dummy, the very fact that the senile POTUS wants an official propaganda dept is ludicrous. This is Cuban, Venezuelan, CCP & North Korea style practices. You are beyond tone deaf. Take the "L" and move on.
No dummy. You don't even know what the board does. But you are ready to compare it to North Korea.
It's probably like most federal advisory boards, which means it does little or nothing.
I'm pretty sure you have been had by the hysterical right wing media once again.
07 -
Real Obvi wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
This gets back to my original point.
As you say, government can be very good at determining truth within an area of focus. But for this board, we don't know what the area of focus is.
Until we know more about what the board actually does and what its powers are, there is no reason to be worried about it.
Please see my earlier post in reply to "Oh?":
A few things:
1) Determining what is true, beyond those whom you listed, is clearly the job of scientists in general. Science is the on-going search for truth.
2) I think that the name of the board (Disinformation Governance Board) makes people unnecessarily nervous about it. If, in fact, it had the charter of policing all "speech" in
all its forms then it would be an odd mix of scary and nutty. But its actual charter seems to be much narrower - focusing on countering Russian propaganda as well as that coming from human smugglers. Should we be against that? I'm not so sure.The government played a huge role in fighting against the endless lies of the tobacco industry for decades. Was that role a terrible mistake? Did it lead to some Orwellian
nightmare? Not as far as I can see. Is this "Disinformation Governance Board" something quite different, or does it just have an unfortunately chosen name (terribly chosen names being a Democratic Party specialty)?I agree with #2 completely.
05 -
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
No one has ever taken an "L" when in debate with you.
Ever.
That's because fools like you refuse to admit defeat.
Get serious Gary. In the BLM debate, you cited a source that backed me up almost word for word. And you still wouldn't admit you were wrong.
08 -
JustMe22 wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Lame as hell. I've never seen CLOSE to a decent defense from any of you Trumpers for why Trump's Top 5 or 10 of clearly disqualifying actions/comments were OK. You can't do it. So you just pretend that the alternative is worse. Just plain stupid and pathetic and destructive.
I know you weren't talking to me...but try and look at it this way: which would you rather have...a grandfatherly President who tries as hard as he can not to offend people or an a-hole President who doesn't care who he offends?
It's a trick question. I don't care how my President decides to convey their personality. I care way more about the policies that President crafts, whether they are effective, and how those policies play out.
You really think that Trump's faults were just about personality? Really? When he lies to your face pretty much every day, that's "just personality"?
Siding with Putin over US intel (Helsinki)? Mocking POWs? Shaking down Zelensky? CLEARLY TRYING TO STEAL A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? Clearly not caring about managing a pandemic as well as possible? SURELY, you can see that those things are about infinitely more than just "personality," or JUST being a general A-hole, right?
I wasn't a fan of Trump before he became president, and was disappointed that he got it. But I remember early on he did something nice/cordial with Taiwan that apparently the diplomatic smarty pants thought was so bad because it would annoy China (I forget exactly what it was). I was happy he did it. We've played our silly games semi-supporting Taiwan for decades, always SO scared of annoying the bully China. Pushing back against that was nice to see. I thought, "You know, I'll bet this guy will do a lot of things that I don't like, but stuff like that is fine." I was open to seeing some defensible rebellion against "norms" from him.
Unfortunately, I saw next-to-nothing of stuff I like from him in the coming years - i.e., defensible political/governmental norms-busting - just a whole crap load of simply indefensible stuff like listed above.
17 -
#19960
This post was removed.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun