Russia

[Guisslapp]

Politifact is from your tribe (they are dems looking to set the record straight).

I am amazed at how everyone lets the 24 hour news cycle run their lives. I do not control these investigations. You may feel all omnipotent there in your chair and feel like your opinion carries so much weight, but it doesn't account for a hill of beans. Go back 3 months and see what the crisis was then. How about 3 months before that. The news cycle is running your life (mostly the fake news cycle). I dont pay attention to the garbage you posted any more than I pay attention to Stuart Varney's 4 hour Trump for President commercial every day.

I refuse to play. Trump is POTUS. I did not vote for him (and I did not vote for Obama or McCain either, and somewhat regret my vote for Romney). At this point I have to just look at whether he is doing a good job FOR AMERICA. I believe he is. You believe he is not. Cry me a river.

The Politfact article highlights some significant facts. It doesn’t matter if you agree with their assessment of the facts, it is the facts themselves that I am alerting you to.

The “DNC not turning server over” is just one of a long list of faux controversies stirred up by Trump and his propaganda machine. These controversies get rebutted when the actual facts are made public the propaganda machine just moves onto another one, meanwhile the people that get their information from the machine fall victim to the pattern of misinformation.

[Guisslapp]

And I like to stay informed so I use news alerts to get updates on things that are going on. Don’t normally have time to watch “news” on TV. I do grow tired of chasing these fake controversy things that Trump stirs up on a daily basis. I don’t even look for a “left” opinion. I just google the subject matter of the controversy and go to the most direct source laying the factual predicate, and almost 100% of the time, I learn within 5 minutes that there is nothing to the controversy beyond what Trump, Nunes, Hannity or Rush is alleging. Yet, when any of those guys say something, the propaganda machine spits out 3-6 articles amplifying the naked allegation. Unlike sources like CNN that issue retractions or corrections that their early reporting was inaccurate, the Trump propaganda just persists to keep the cloud around for those that rarely venture out of the bubble or it serves to diminish the credibility of actual facts for those that do venture out of the bubble more frequently but still spend a good amount of time in the bubble. That bubble is not good for America - it is only good for Trump.

[DawgyNWindow]

When you refuse to interact with facts because you’ve already decided what’s true and what’s not, you are consuming news in a biased and discriminatory way. That type of Media consumption (or refusal to consume) is what has given rise to a media culture that makes its money confirming the biases of its readers.

In short, don’t gripe about the media that you’ve demanded.

I have demanded nothing. Perhaps you have?

[johnnylightnin]

I have demanded nothing. Perhaps you have?

I'm sure I have. I just try to be honest about it. What you just described is text book confirmation bias. They're your words not mine. Then you rail about the media that exists for confirmation bias!

Just a few questions:

1. Given the fact that you say all media is biased, where do you think it would be possible to read actually true negative things about President Trump if there were actually true negative things to report? By your admission, it won't be fox news or talk radio. So, if anything negative happens, will you be left out because you refuse to consume news from biased media?

2. How do you think a reporters bias plays into facts? You don't interact with Vox or Politifact because they're liberals. How does their liberality affect your ability to critically evaluate arguments and claims?

This ad hominem method of evaluating news stories seems like a self defeating process that will ensure that you only read things you already agreed with.

[DawgyNWindow]

I'm sure I have. I just try to be honest about it. What you just described is text book confirmation bias. They're your words not mine. Then you rail about the media that exists for confirmation bias!

Just a few questions:

1. Given the fact that you say all media is biased, where do you think it would be possible to read actually true negative things about President Trump if there were actually true negative things to report? By your admission, it won't be fox news or talk radio. So, if anything negative happens, will you be left out because you refuse to consume news from biased media?

2. How do you think a reporters bias plays into facts? You don't interact with Vox or Politifact because they're liberals. How does their liberality affect your ability to critically evaluate arguments and claims?

This ad hominem method of evaluating news stories seems like a self defeating process that will ensure that you only read things you already agreed with.

Nope...This is incorrect analysis.

I don't base my existence on any individual, living or dead. I don't care about negative things about Trump. He is just another person living on the planet. I don't care about positive things about Trump either. I have no issues with hero worship of politicians and I am not looking for a savior.

Real political issues don't contain Trump at all...just Trump positions. I don't care if Trump got a little moist from Inga in a Russian hotel room (I don't believe he did, however), whether he went to church this past Sunday or anything else for that matter.

I agree with Trump on immigration, taxes, health care and a number of other things. I disagree with him on trade (he is WAY too free trade for me), constant tweeting and giving the leader of North Korea legitimacy (though this may actually work out). On balance I like what he is doing.

All that other stuff is just political noise.

[johnnylightnin]

Nope...This is incorrect analysis.

I don't base my existence on any individual, living or dead. I don't care about negative things about Trump. He is just another person living on the planet. I don't care about positive things about Trump either. I have no issues with hero worship of politicians and I am not looking for a savior.

Real political issues don't contain Trump at all...just Trump positions. I don't care if Trump got a little moist from Inga in a Russian hotel room (I don't believe he did, however), whether he went to church this past Sunday or anything else for that matter.

I agree with Trump on immigration, taxes, health care and a number of other things. I disagree with him on trade (he is WAY too free trade for me), constant tweeting and giving the leader of North Korea legitimacy (though this may actually work out). On balance I like what he is doing.

All that other stuff is just political noise.

You didn't answer my questions.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I'm sure I have. I just try to be honest about it. What you just described is text book confirmation bias. They're your words not mine. Then you rail about the media that exists for confirmation bias!

Just a few questions:

1. Given the fact that you say all media is biased, where do you think it would be possible to read actually true negative things about President Trump if there were actually true negative things to report? By your admission, it won't be fox news or talk radio. So, if anything negative happens, will you be left out because you refuse to consume news from biased media?

2. How do you think a reporters bias plays into facts? You don't interact with Vox or Politifact because they're liberals. How does their liberality affect your ability to critically evaluate arguments and claims?

This ad hominem method of evaluating news stories seems like a self defeating process that will ensure that you only read things you already agreed with.

Sorry but conservatives like Mark Levin and Rush will hammer on Trump when he's wrong.

[johnnylightnin]

Sorry but conservatives like Mark Levin and Rush will hammer on Trump when he's wrong.

Levin maybe, but Rush has been in the tank for a while now. I didn't listen during the Bush years, so I have no clue whether or not he's in the tank for all Rep Presidents, but he's super soft on Trump. Interestingly, he predicted a candidate just like Trump early during the Obama years and warned of the long term damage it could do to "movement" conservatism.

I e-mailed him about it and he never wrote me back...

No mega-dittos for Rush from me. He's as in the tank as Hannity, he's just a lot smarter than Hannity, so he's better at hiding it!

Manafort in the clink...I hope they're watching him close. Folks in the position he appears to be in have a tendency to stop breathing.

[brtransplant]

Levin maybe, but Rush has been in the tank for a while now. I didn't listen during the Bush years, so I have no clue whether or not he's in the tank for all Rep Presidents, but he's super soft on Trump. Interestingly, he predicted a candidate just like Trump early during the Obama years and warned of the long term damage it could do to "movement" conservatism.

I e-mailed him about it and he never wrote me back...

No mega-dittos for Rush from me. He's as in the tank as Hannity, he's just a lot smarter than Hannity, so he's better at hiding it!

Manafort in the clink...I hope they're watching him close. Folks in the position he appears to be in have a tendency to stop breathing.

I believe you're confused a little. It's folks in the position he appears to be in when it pertains to the Clinton's that seem to stop breathing.

[johnnylightnin]

I believe you're confused a little. It's folks in the position he appears to be in when it pertains to the Clinton's that seem to stop breathing.

So you think he’s got some incriminating info on Trump then? I suppose we’ll find out. Russian Deep Staters caught in a trap can be unpredictable. Trump sure is distancing himself from Manafort.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

So you think he’s got some incriminating info on Trump then? I suppose we’ll find out. Russian Deep Staters caught in a trap can be unpredictable. Trump sure is distancing himself from Manafort.

Poor Manafort only worked on the Trump Campaign team from March to August 2016. I bet he regrets those few months.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Well of course Comey is involved.

Comey 'involved in collusion' to stop Trump

Horowitz report provides evidence, says Mark Levin


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/#UbdlPurEGAFHiVZb.99

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2018/02/Oba...ns-596x283.jpg

Comey 'involved in collusion' to stop Trump

Horowitz report provides evidence, says Mark Levin


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/#UbdlPurEGAFHiVZb.99

[johnnylightnin]

Poor Manafort only worked on the Trump Campaign team from March to August 2016. I bet he regrets those few months.

Manafort or Trump? There are quite a few advisors who parted ways with the campaign in their official capacity at peculiar times. Manafort's old buddy and former business partner Roger Stone for example.

[PawDawg]

Rush and Hannity both hammered Trump on the tax bill among several other issues.

[DONW]

Mueller's Russia investigation has taken a big hit with the IG's report that just came out. There is now clear evidence of bias against Trump by Peter Strzok who worked for Mueller and by some others that are still working for Mueller. This is so clear and evident that it looks like Mueller brought all these democrat lawyers in because he knew they would be biased against Trump and screw up the investigation.