President Trump

I didn't ask you for every airing, 24/7. I asked for any, for something that just happened, which you put in quotes. Were those not actually quotes?

Yes. They were things I heard after the address - I like to flip around the news channels to see what they say. I particularly like to focus on those openly opposed to the right (with MSNBC being the most extreme among the left-leaning cable news channels). I can't find that particular clip from that particular show because (as I said) they don't upload their entire airing history to a website, and even if they did, it might be difficult to find a particular moment out of 24/7 commentary without knowing a certain keyword or the name of who said it.

If you've ever seen any of these shows - they have panels of talking heads who all spew their interpretations after Presidential addresses. I heard one these people say the ridiculous things about the parents of these slain girls that I quoted earlier. I don't even know what the show was called or who the host was - it was just the post address show on MSNBC.

Now, in trying to find the information I quoted, I found the following link - it does NOT reference any of things I heard, but it does demonstrate that, in days following, these parents are unhappy with things MSNBC has said in regards to their story and their presence at the address. I only post it to show that these parents recognize the overall attitude of MSNBC as was displayed in a vast amount of their commentary after the address.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._joy_reid.html

If the economy keeps gorwing at this rate he's definitely winning a second term

__________________

The problem with just "flipping around" is that you end up overlaying your interpretation onto things and then treating that interpretation as if it were fact. Everyone is prone to confirmation bias (particularly, I would say, people not in the habit of sourcing things), and in this case you're clearly going there in order to hear these kinds of things, apparently so you can come on here later and use them to pivot away from other people's criticisms yet again.

At least once you've admitted that what you initially presented as fact from one of these channel-flipping routines was not a literal quote, but just you reading between the lines and extrapolating, so the skepticism is more than warranted.

That's an example of why arguments based on half-remembered "channel flipping" are maybe not a great idea. It sure doesn't seem hard to me to take note of this stuff if you hear something so incendiary and plan to throw it into a political debate later.

Thanks, but isn't this kind of evidence the other way? It seems pretty odd that someone would bother to write an article like this and not include a reference to something as incendiary as claiming Trump "forced" them. If it was actually said.

I'm guessing this is the point in the loop where you say nothing and then come back in a few weeks and do it again?

Yes. What can I say, I lost the "debate" (not that I started out debating, I was just commenting on something heard on a "news" show).

You questioned the veracity of what I claimed I heard and required proof. I can't find any recordings of it. I can't prove the premise to you because I don't have the required information (and I can't transmit it to you on an old NASA radio wave, I can't key it in by hand, nor can I join with you physically to directly deliver the information required).



i.e. I concede, you win (not that I was competing, just giving an opinion).

P.S. In the future, I trust you will.. nursemaid me through these difficulties, Mister?

This isn't an accurate description of what you've been doing. You used something you supposedly heard as a jumping off point for a multi-paragraph rant, one that was basically identical to a half-dozen other rants.

The idea that you were just making some idle observation, which I unfairly pounced on, is simply fiction. You are actively (and knowingly) provoking debate by making contentious claims, in a debate-filled thread, over and over, and then feigning shock when people argue with or question them.

Aye, and that isn't an unusual or unreasonable request, despite the completely unsubtle attempts to make it sound that way by injecting words like "require" or "demand."

Mock subservience is a bad look towards someone simply expecting you to substantiate the things you say. Especially when you say them constantly. These are not offhand remarks about minor issues arbitrarily subjected to scrutiny, dude: these are repeated diatribes about the same thing, which often entirely hinge on whether the unsubstantiated claim is true.

Anyway, what you can trust is that I'm going to keep pointing this out when it happens. Whether or not you actually start to restrict your beliefs to things informed by objective evidence is, of course, up to you.

You're absolutely right - people should be able to back up their claims - in this case I apparently cannot as the quotes I heard either aren't available online or I'm not able to find them. I guess I jumped the gun because I didn't view it as a "claim" of something that happened, but rather more-of-the-same type of rabid, non-thought-out spewing from MSNBC that would be known to anyone that tuned in shortly after the address.

Ironically, (and I'm not presenting this as a defence, just to take from it what you will) - I copied and pasted my initial post about MSNBC from another site where I had posted it - I got many reps for it on that board.

I can assume the people who repped it either also saw what I was referring to (very likely since I was posting on a political thread followed by people who are apt to view follow-up news shows after a SOTU address) OR they just took my word for it, having little doubt about it since they are already well-educated about what comes out of MSNBC.

Now, as that board seems composed of equal parts of the bipartisan politics, none of the Trump opposers (and there are many) came forward to ask me to produce "proof" of what I heard. My guess is (and I could be wrong) that many of them are MSNBC viewers, so they didn't need proof since they watched the post-address show and knew exactly what I was referring to OR, they also had little doubt, knowing the tac this network has been known to take.

Some argued with me on various stances toward illegal immigration and Trump's use of parents slain by illegal aliens, but there weren't any who refused to even begin talking about the substance of the matters at hand based on the idea that I did not prove the sources I referenced.

Cool. I dunno if this means you didn't actually believe I was been unreasonable by expecting this in the past, or if I've just persuaded you, but either way I guess I'll take it.

The fact that you're cross-posting these things really doesn't square with the idea that they're just idle brain droppings, brought up casually.

I have two responses to this:

1. "This is the kind of thing that COULD have happened" is a very common way to justify exaggerating (or even lying). I've noticed similar ideas in other discussions about the media, which usually end up being less about whether a specific claim is fair, and more about whether or not you find them fair in general. The problem with this posture is that it stops evaluating claims on their own merits, and eventually morphs into accepting or rejecting things simply based on the group they come from. Tribalism, basically.

It also fits perfectly with what I said about confirmation bias and memory: if you specifically tune in to MSNBC to hear wacky stuff like this, and you already feel it's the kind of thing you might hear, it's not much of a leap from "it may as well have happened" to "it happened." And hey, if you did exaggerate a little...don't they sort of deserve it, since they're so bad? Of course, this is exactly the kind of thing that leads people to exaggerate the severity of things Trump says, too: he's bad, so I'm absolved of having to critique him fairly. It's an easy trap to fall into.

2. I don't know how many interactions you've had with these people, but perhaps they simply haven't noticed. We, on the other hand, have had lots of discussions. We probably had dozens of discussions without incident, until I made some innocuous request for evidence,
fully expecting to get it, and got back a deflection, or something about it being an interpretation. Obviously, after that happens a few times, you can't really help but become aware of the pattern. On top of the normal awareness, from experience, of the ways people on the Internet tend to gloss over, hide, or misrepresent things after arguing with them so --even unconsciously.

There aren't any people here saying that, either. And for the record, I think Trump is completely right to bring up the issue and I think it's absurd that people are trying to downplay the incident. And I think the things they demonstrably say, on the record, are perfectly sufficient to criticize them with.

At this point I don't really understand what you're supposed to be trying to do. The paragraph above indicates a desire to discuss the issue, but you also keep saying you don't want to "debate." So what's that net out to? That you want responses, but only if they agree with you? Or that you like "debate," but only the kind where everyone just sort of pontificates and nobody spoils the fun by requiring facts and evidence?

I'm willing to debate Trump's agenda (which, for the most part I think was a similar agenda to most of the other Repub candidates, but unfortunately the most unprofessional-acting and uncouth candidate got elected). I'm willing to debate immigration.

I can't debate what I said MSNBC said about Trump's address because I can't find the source (even they probably realized how stupid a thing it was on the part of one of their talking heads, so they made sure it wouldn't get uploaded - just a guess). So, it's a dead issue since I can't prove it was said.

I guess my reason for posting the initial post was 1.) to bash MSNBC for it's continuing record of irresponsible, agenda-driven journalism and 2.) to spark discussion over Trump's use of the parents of victims slain by illegal aliens and the SOTU address in general.

Whatever do you mean?

__________________

212 555 6342

Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions

Patrick Bateman
Vice President

358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534

FYI, not ignoring this or anything, appreciate the reply. Just busy yesterday and going on five hours of sleep today, but will reply soon.

What's this about Trump planning a "military parade?"

(For Yoda) Be advised, I'm just responding to something I heard Sec. Maddis say during a news conference - the source reference will probably be easy to obtain within a few hours.

I didn't think we (the U.S.) did "military parades" unless maybe couching them within other celebratory parades such as on Independence Day. I thought that was the kind of thing the dictatorships like to do - showing off their troops and weapons to the world. I never thought it was the kind of thing we HAD to do. (Have we ever done military parades? I mean, outside of ones conducted at ceremonies at military academies & bases or outside of natural troop movements from one area to another?)

Sounds like "keeping up with the Kim's" to me - coinciding with Trump's "mine is bigger than yours" tweets.

What's this all about?

He was so impressed with the parade the French threw for him in Paris that now he wants the Pentagon to throw a parade for him too, only "bigglier". The military is already grumbling about how this is an enormous waste of time and money when they cant afford either. But hes the CIC so theyll do it if he orders it. And then he will turn around and insist that the american tax payers pony up hundreds of billions for his big beautiful useless Mexican funded wall...

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Well, if that indeed is the case... for those who say I have no criticisms for Trump, here's one.

Besides the cost for something useless, it just seems so juvenile.
I mean, doesn't the unelected boy-king Kim have one of these every couple months that gets televised to the world, showing him clapping as large missiles and goose-stepping troops march by? I know I've seen those clips.

And I always thought that having the strongest military in the world meant we don't have to show off (and true strength never does.) And I thought that idea went along with Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy - where speaking softly includes not showing off or bragging about what you have.

It will make us look like the socialist & communist dictatorships we have long opposed (since this is a political tactic they have long and regularly used). And, in my opinion, it makes them look foolish and fascist.

Addendum for Trump: if you really want to show off the military, do so by destroying more terrorists and terrorist strongholds!

Illinois Holocaust denier, Jew-hater set to be Republican nominee for Congress

But theres good people on both sides!