Jump to content

SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?


Scott

SURVEY: Do you WANT Trump to finish his first term?  

479 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, alocacoc said:

Actually it's Reuters News, not mine. TV loves Reuters. Better don't critizise them.

If you read the report you may understand why more and more millennials prefer the Republicans. You might even learn something. Come on, give it a try.

Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App.
 

I did read it. My take away was that some millennials were moving from Dem to GOP, but that many more were becoming "undecided".

 

How about you tell me your opinion on what the Pew Research poll says: http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/01/1-generations-party-identification-midterm-voting-preferences-views-of-trump/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alocacoc said:

Actually it's Reuters News, not mine. TV loves Reuters. Better don't critizise them.

If you read the report you may understand why more and more millennials prefer the Republicans. You might even learn something. Come on, give it a try.

Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App.
 

Actually the report showed a 1 percent increase in Republican support among millenials. But it's nice to see you citing data for once. And I assum that when data that doesn't support your views is presented, you won't be crying "fake news."

Edited by bristolboy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the rule that's going to be applied shortly:

 

10) Do not discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy.  You will not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

 

As noted, no one is under any obligation to read any thread that is not of interest to them nor to post.  

 

Feel free to move on to topics that are of interest to you.   

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bristolboy said:

Because of capitalism? Organization like the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal are valued highly because 99.9 percent of the time they get it right. And when they get it wrong they acknowledge it. For  them to start spewing like Breitbart would ultimately cost them lots of money and ultimately their continued existence.

The object of the story I posted says they got it wrong. What happens then?

 

I'm not saying they got it wrong BTW, I'm saying it is really shoddy journalism. So shoddy it could give license to, dare I say it, "fake" stories ,, as no one would know the difference except the person they're writing the story about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

The title of the award is....Nobel Peace Prize, NOT Nobel Diplomacy Prize.

 

However peace is achieved is irrelevant, be it by the stick or carrot.

 

If any individual threatened to exterminate the Palestinians, and they lay down their arms, he would be well worthy of such a prize.

Trump has made numerous low life comments regards both domestic and international matters, blatantly lies nearly every day and so on. IMO it would grossly demine the prestige of the prize for an individual such as Trump to be selected. However, at this stage Trump sycophants are counting the chickens before they hatch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The object of the story I posted says they got it wrong. What happens then?

 

I'm not saying they got it wrong BTW, I'm saying it is really shoddy journalism. So shoddy it could give license to, dare I say it, "fake" stories ,, as no one would know the difference except the person they're writing the story about.

Just about everything that Trump claims to be "fake news" turns out to be true.  Which is why the mainstream media has more credibility than Trump.  Much, much more...unless you're a devoted Trump minion. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The object of the story I posted says they got it wrong. What happens then?

 

I'm not saying they got it wrong BTW, I'm saying it is really shoddy journalism. So shoddy it could give license to, dare I say it, "fake" stories ,, as no one would know the difference except the person they're writing the story about.

Well, it would be shocking if he confirmed it. How often is it the case that officials confirm leaks that would hurt their standing?

 

Anonymous leaks have been around since forever. And they're an important way of getting information. There aren't a hell of a lot of government officials or business executives looking to be outed as whistleblowers. And the reputable news sources usually ask for more than one anonymous source for confirmation. As in this case:

"The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone bulwark against catastrophe, curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an idiot" multiple times to underscore his point, according to four officials who say they've witnessed the comments."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/kelly-thinks-he-s-saving-u-s-disaster-calls-trump-n868961

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, it would be shocking if he confirmed it. How often is it the case that officials confirm leaks that would hurt their standing?

 

Anonymous leaks have been around since forever. And they're an important way of getting information. There aren't a hell of a lot of government officials or business executives looking to be outed as whistleblowers. And the reputable news sources usually ask for more than one anonymous source for confirmation. As in this case:

"The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone bulwark against catastrophe, curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an idiot" multiple times to underscore his point, according to four officials who say they've witnessed the comments."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/kelly-thinks-he-s-saving-u-s-disaster-calls-trump-n868961

 

The article I posted used sources "that had left the administration but were not authorized to speak". What the hell does that mean? Again, I'm not saying they are wrong  but I don't put much stock in articles where you can't judge the credibility and/or motives of a source. I guess that's just me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

The article I posted used sources "that had left the administration but were not authorized to speak". What the hell does that mean? Again, I'm not saying they are wrong  but I don't put much stock in articles where you can't judge the credibility and/or motives of a source. I guess that's just me.

Me, I'll go with the Bayesian approach to such issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

Well, what an honorable chap you are!!

 

I find it interesting that those who do think Trump should be given a chance to get the job done don't heap insults on those who want him gone.  Unfortunately, not the same courtesy from the left....minions???

Really?

Until you actually provide data for your assertion, it's entirely an empty one. I see lots of stupid insults coming from both sides. I will say, that I believe the most over the top crazy insults come from the right wingers but they  tend to get deleted by the moderators.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I read those same articles quoting people who decline to give their name, while people who are willing to go on the record say it's bullshit.  Article after article after article quoting "sources". Since no one ever names the sources, what's to stop the "journalist" from just making up stories and saying they got it from a "source" who declines to go on the record?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kelly-calls-bs-report-called-trump-idiot-211307512--politics.html

I believe the country's libel laws are what was put in place to protect protect both journalistic integrity and individuals from unsourced abuses. The journalist does not have to reveal sources unless they are called to do so in a court of law. Very smart those earlier US politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikebike said:

I believe the country's libel laws are what was put in place to protect protect both journalistic integrity and individuals from unsourced abuses. The journalist does not have to reveal sources unless they are called to do so in a court of law. Very smart those earlier US politicians.

Your belief is not correct. It was the Supreme Court that ruled that public figures don't enjoy the same degree of protection as do private citizens. They set the standard that you had to prove actual malice. There's a good chance that Trump provided such an instance when he said Stormy Daniels was engaged in a con job.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The object of the story I posted says they got it wrong. What happens then?

 

I'm not saying they got it wrong BTW, I'm saying it is really shoddy journalism. So shoddy it could give license to, dare I say it, "fake" stories ,, as no one would know the difference except the person they're writing the story about.

Then, if they believe they have a case and can prove it they sue and crush the liar(s).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikebike said:

I believe the country's libel laws are what was put in place to protect protect both journalistic integrity and individuals from unsourced abuses. The journalist does not have to reveal sources unless they are called to do so in a court of law. Very smart those earlier US politicians.

 

I'm in favor of journalists not being compelled to reveal sources. Especially if it's Deep Throat or someone who's life or career may be at risk. But if you're going to use anonymous sources the subject matter ought to be verifiable IMO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm in favor of journalists not being compelled to reveal sources. Especially if it's Deep Throat or someone who's life or career may be at risk. But if you're going to use anonymous sources the subject matter ought to be verifiable IMO.

I"m sure many politicians, particularly the corrupt ones, endorse your point of view.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

The title of the award is....Nobel Peace Prize, NOT Nobel Diplomacy Prize.

 

However peace is achieved is irrelevant, be it by the stick or carrot.

 

If any individual threatened to exterminate the Palestinians, and they lay down their arms, he would be well worthy of such a prize.

North Korea "... will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which the world has never seen before".  The pinnacle of peacefulness.  How's that double-think working out for you?  :crazy:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...