The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
Yes I am aware. But I'm not the one acting like a media organisation putting different views in their output is evidence that there's something wrong with that organisation.
It's not just different views. It's views that flip-flop with almost clockwork precision in whatever manner makes Trump look the worst.

They like X, Trump likes X, they now hate X.
They hate X, Trump hates X, people who hate X are now monsters.

These articles are actually quite consistent, if you take the time to read them. I'm guessing you only read the headlines.
Most people do just read the headlines, which is why this tactic is so effective. There's probably a large percentage of people out there who hate Trump, just based on the headlines.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
The headline is enough to influence people, as I already explained to you.
Only if they share your intellectual laziness. Or have you forgotten how this exchange began? "I'm going to stop you right there because you've just demonstrated that - once again - you didn't read beyond the headline and didn't think beyond what your echo chamber told you to think."

Or perhaps something a bit older?

You rarely read beyond tweets or headlines, and only begrudingly look for more information after being called out. Even then you only ever seem to come away with the most superficial of understandings, seemingly stopping your research the moment you find a sentence that you think you can leverage to make even the pettiest of 'gotcha' allegations irrespective of the surrounding context even of the source you're citing, much less the post you're responding to. So many exchanges with you essentially boil down to us explaining why the things you're ignorantly clinging to either do not imply what you claim or are simply false, and you in turn plugging your fingers in your ears, and effectively yelling "nuh-uh" before simply restating your then-debunked argument.
Gee, it's almost like you're predictable!
 

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
974
1,167
98
Country
United States
I've never heard of slate, and given those headlines, I probably never will.

As for the CNN bit, two weeks passed, and they were proven to be wrong. Okay? The press gets things wrong? They aren't omnipotent?

Wouldn't it fit your point better if they buried the wiretap story, instead of featuring an exclusive on it?

Also at least one of those is an editorial. Which is absolutely a fault in how news is presented and perceived, with editorial headlines being listed the same as breaking news.
Actually. They weren't proven wrong. Once again, I had to go through ignore to even find out what you were talking about.

The key difference is what we're actually stating. Donald Trump said the FBI were running surveillance on him at Trump Tower. The FBI later says that they were surveilling Manafort.

And the actual link that I had to look up here, they had this line.

The Justice Department and the FBI have denied that Trump’s own “wires” were tapped.

While Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, it’s unclear whether FBI surveillance of him took place there.

Manafort has a home as well in Alexandria, Virginia. FBI agents raided the Alexandria residence in July.

The FBI also eavesdropped on Carter Page, a campaign associate that then candidate Trump once identified as a national security adviser. Page’s ties to Russia, including an attempt by Russian spies to cultivate him, prompted the FBI to obtain a FISA court warrant in 2014.
What the actual news is, is that a deeply Trump controlled Justice Department did a deep search and in 2019 found no evidence of any wiretapping on Trump Tower, which Donald originally claimed.


Horowitz debunked a conspiracy theory that President Donald Trump invented weeks after taking office in 2017. Horowitz made the comment at a Senate Homeland Security hearing about his report into the early stages of the Russia investigation.

“Did the report find that the FBI engaged in surveillance of Trump Tower?” Sen. Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat, asked Horowitz.

Horowitz replied, “We did not find evidence of surveillance on Trump Tower.”

Trump levied the bombshell accusation in 2017 against former President Barack Obama, claiming that Obama personally ordered his phones to be wiretapped before the 2016 election, and has repeated versions of it since.


“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Trump tweeted, only six weeks after taking office, later adding, “President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

No information has emerged to corroborate the claim that Trump’s calls were wiretapped or that Obama was involved. Some top Republicans dismissed the allegations, and the Justice Department said in court filings in September 2017 that it doesn’t have any evidence to back up what Trump said.

The Russia investigation did include wiretaps against a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, and the Horowitz review found serious problems with how those warrants were obtained. FBI informants also met with Page and two other Trump campaign aides, to ask them questions about their ties to Russia.

Horowitz said “all of the monitoring activities were approved” by the appropriate FBI leaders.

But the Justice Department watchdog report debunked several other Trump-backed conspiracy theories, in addition to the wiretap claims. The report highlighted how Trump relied on lies and falsehoods to attack the Russia probe that undermined the first two years of his presidency.
So we don't even have proof CNN has lied. We have CNN telling the facts they had over Manafort, and the facts they and the entire world has received from the Justice Department, a justice department controlled by Trump's own administration.

How did this occur? Well, Jeff Sessions said he didn't give Trump any claim to believe there was wiretapping. Oddly enough, Jeff Sessions didn't last long. In comes William Barr. Barr was like "Nah, dude. There was totes tapping, ya heard?" And this article is the summation of Barr's digging on the behest of Trump.

The department that Trump's biggest cheerleader personally ran couldn't find a shred of evidence of Wiretapping. And yet, literally a year plus after this was proven, we still have the people who are "impartial" and "just bringing up facts" bringing up falsehoods that were disproven a long time ago. Or worst yet, slapping things together to look like they go together when they simply do not.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
Like how some outlets lied about the election fraud

Yes we know
If that's a yes, then I'm satisfied.
If that's a "no, this is all the right's fault!", then I might just post five more examples.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,635
1,103
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
If that's a yes, then I'm satisfied.
If that's a "no, this is all the right's fault!", then I might just post five more examples.
It's funny. Every pieces of news you brought us about election fruad utterly failed. They were lies told to you to make you feel good

I blame all of those guys just as much as Trump and how it lead to last Wednesday

As to all media lying. Yep sure do. Why don't you actually realise you've been lead down a garden path
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Do you think a majority of people read the article, or just the headline?
Exactly.
I think that a person who hasn't read the very article they're citing as evidence has nothing meaningful to contribute to a discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tippy2k2

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,056
3,155
118
Most people do just read the headlines, which is why this tactic is so effective. There's probably a large percentage of people out there who hate Trump, just based on the headlines.
But even the headlines aren't that damning.

The first states numbers are down, then with the set up "Is it time to panic yet?" This rhetorical set-up is hinting there's a debate to be had here, the possibility that it's not as bad as it seems (with the hook that you'll need to read the article to find out why).

The second says that Trump claims numbers are way down, but "that's not completely true". In other words, there is some truth to what Trump has said (therefore implicitly numbers are down), but there are complicating factors so it might not be as clear cut as it seems.

So in fact, even the headlines are consistent to anyone who does more than glance at them superficially.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,056
3,155
118
Do you think a majority of people read the article, or just the headline?
The people who only read a headline aren't likely to remember it for the headline content to matter.

I'm not sure their opinions really do either, at least in intelligent debate. Arguing "I don't bother to check any facts!" does not do wonders for anyone's credibility.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
I think that a person who hasn't read the very article they're citing as evidence has nothing meaningful to contribute to a discussion.
The content of the article was never the point, the headlines were.

So in fact, even the headlines are consistent to anyone who does more than glance at them superficially.
Doing more than glancing at them superficially is a big ask for most people, I would think. Most people don't sit down and pick apart headlines.

The people who only read a headline aren't likely to remember it for the headline content to matter.
I don't really remember advertisements, but they're still effective, so that the product and sentiment pop into my mind.
That's how it works, it's subconscious.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
You know the election fruad stuff is a lie. Are you just lying to yourself or playing devils advocate again?
I can't comment on that as Nick has made it clear to me in a PM that he's "not going to allow conspiracy theories to run on our forums"
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
The content of the article was never the point, the headlines were.
No, that's the lie you switched to in a transparent attempt to try and salvage your wounded pride after you had the rug swept out from under you with the revelation that - as per usual - you hadn't actually done even the most token of research into the claims you were parroting.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,635
1,103
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I can't comment on that as Nick has made it clear to me in a PM that he's "not going to allow conspiracy theories to run on our forums"
I mean, I was probably talking more about Fox and OAN. But I don't know specifically what Nick said.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,056
3,155
118
Doing more than glancing at them superficially is a big ask for most people, I would think. Most people don't sit down and pick apart headlines.
I must have somehow missed the subconscious message that said "Don't vote for Trump" in that headline that Trump wasn't completely true about the NFL ratings.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
I mean, I was probably talking more about Fox and OAN. But I don't know specifically what Nick said.
If it's a question of trusting Fox and OAN, no I don't trust either of them, but I try to make an effort to understand and empathize with all points of view.

I must have somehow missed the subconscious message that said "Don't vote for Trump" in that headline that Trump wasn't completely true about the NFL ratings.
Because you're smarter than the average bear.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,824
421
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Do you have any evidence for that accusation?
You mean aside from your long history of dishonest debate tactics that have dominated your posting history? All the equivocation, quote mines, willful misinterpretation? The numerous times you've linked sources to prove a point only for the people who actually looked into them to see that you were at best completely ignorant of their content and at worst deliberately lying about it and hoping people wouldn't actually follow the link? The innumerable other times that when asked to evidence your claims you've retreated to some variation of "you can't disprove it"? Because from that alone we infer it as wholly in character for you.

But you want specifics. Your argument changed from "CNN switched its stance" and characterizing them as "articles like 'X is good, Trump did X, X is bad now'", and scoffing that readers would distinguish between editorial/opinion pieces and 'real news', "as if you can just put something in the opinion section, or put a disclaimer on it, and then people know to put up their mental defenses so that it doesn't unduly influence their own opinions". You kept on making arguments about substance, about the articles themselves...until it was pointed out that your entire argument was unsalvageable tripe because the content of the articles weren't what you claimed, at which point you switched tracks to adopt the more superficial "well, it's not like people read the articles anyway..." focus on headlines. And when you suddenly switch from substantive to superficial right after someone tells you that the substantive argument is unsalvageable tripe...it's a pretty obvious conclusion to derive from the circumstances, especially in light of your standard approach to argumentation.