The Stuff removed / changed / pulled relating to Trump

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
761
118
You mean aside from your long history of dishonest debate tactics that have dominated your posting history? All the equivocation, quote mines, willful misinterpretation?
Aside from your opinions yes.

. You kept on making arguments about substance, about the articles themselves...
No, I didn't. You can't have it both ways. You can't criticize me for not reading the articles, and then claim I was talking about the content of the articles the whole time.

Phrases like "switched its stance" and "articles like" do not show that I was talking about the bodies of the articles, as that phrase: "the bodies of the articles", distinguishes between the article and the body of the article itself.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,836
440
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Aside from your opinions yes.
What you dismiss here as opinion is habit evidence.


No, I didn't. You can't have it both ways. You can't criticize me for not reading the articles, and then claim I was talking about the content of the articles the whole time.
Actually I can because it doesn't actually rely on your knowledge of the articles actual content, but rather your assumptions about that content. The basic argument is thus: You never do your due diligence, but instead simply parrot the claims of your echo chamber. Your echo chamber cited those articles as proof that CNN was holding a double standard and had switched positions. Laboring under the mistaken assumption that your echo chamber had supplied an accurate characterization of the articles, you did what you always do and parroted them without actually reading the articles in question, and made similarly false allegations about their substance out of ignorance.

It's a bog-standard mistake frequently made by conspiracy theorists of all stripes, but perhaps most infamously by creationists, as exemplified by their common citation of Origin of the Species to claim that "even Darwin admitted the eye couldn't have naturally evolved". And as anyone who has actually read the passage in question can tell you, what the creationists are citing as an admission was in fact a rhetorical lead-in of an explanation of the very thing that they claimed Darwin admitted was impossible. Most of the people citing it, however, haven't read the book beyond the phrase quoted to them to show that "even Darwin admitted that the eye couldn't have naturally evolved" and parrot the claim and citation ignorant of the true context. As it is there, so it was here with your citation of the aforementioned articles.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
761
118
What you dismiss here as opinion is habit evidence.
Neat, I've never heard of habit evidence before.

Regardless, your opinions about my habits are just that, opinions, just like it's my opinion (and I think I have evidence for this) that CNN and other outlets are heavily biased against Trump and come out with headlines that make him look bad (switch their stances), as soon as Trump is for or against something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,074
316
88
Neat, I've never heard of habit evidence before.

Regardless, your opinions about my habits are just that, opinions, just like it's my opinion (and I think I have evidence for this) that CNN and other outlets are heavily biased against Trump and come out with headlines that make him look bad (switch their stances), as soon as Trump is for or against something.
Some evidence from Snopes if you want to throw it out there

 
  • Like
Reactions: Houseman

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,074
316
88
And now Trump is being cut off from banks.

One of which apparently has accounts with millions in them that they've closed


Video cause Bloomberg are reporting it and it's paywalled
 

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
607
531
98
Country
Poland
And now Trump is being cut off from banks.

One of which apparently has accounts with millions in them that they've closed


Video cause Bloomberg are reporting it and it's paywalled
That's the thing i absolutely expected to happen even before 6/1(although AFTER he's off the office).
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
242
119
48
And now Trump is being cut off from banks.

One of which apparently has accounts with millions in them that they've closed


Video cause Bloomberg are reporting it and it's paywalled
Tbh I have always wondered why Deutsche Bank kept Trump after the way he treated them.
While I'm personally against this as I believe banks should not look at your political actions beyond using your money to finance terrorism, drug cartels, money laundring,...
I do feel many republican conservatives should consider this fine. Don't they believe it's ok if gays can't buy bread or cake because being homosexual is against the religious beliefs of the baker? Why shouldn't a bank be able to do the same?
 
Last edited:

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
242
119
48
The content of the article was never the point, the headlines were.
How so?

You know what would "debunk" this? If we could find anyone at CNN defending or praising Trump or his polices.
If instead of seeing articles like "X is good, Trump did X, X is bad now", we saw articles like "X is bad, Trump did X, X is good now".

These examples all have the TIMELINE in common. Things shift from good to bad, or unacceptable to criticize to acceptable to criticize when Trump does them.

On the subject of "opinion" pieces, do they get pushed any less than the "real" articles? Are they treated as second-class citizens, as far as the publication is concerned?
Are they forbidden from being on the front page or the subject of a tweet?

Are they any less impactful, and do they play any less of a role in shaping the narrative and public perception?
Do you think the average person reading CNN is going to distinguish between an opinion piece and "real news", and then put up his mental defenses against incoming bias?
You mentioned "articles" in the beginning of the discussion quite clearly and not "headlines". So there, instead of admitting you were wrong you went full Donald Trump and just lied your way out of it. No surprise you admire him, you use the same communication techniques.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,209
3,294
118
...just like it's my opinion (and I think I have evidence for this) that CNN and other outlets are heavily biased against Trump and come out with headlines that make him look bad (switch their stances), as soon as Trump is for or against something.
Is CNN biased against Trump, or is Trump genuinely bad and you are biased against CNN?
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,061
1,559
118
Country
United States of America
Is CNN biased against Trump, or is Trump genuinely bad and you are biased against CNN?
I wouldn't say CNN is "heavily biased" against Trump, but they tend not to do the hagiography for him that they do for 'respectable' politicians that don't embarrass our elites so much.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,209
3,294
118
And now Trump is being cut off from banks.
In context, let's remember that Trump systematically cheated banks, long before he was president.

Back in the 90s, Trump borrowed from banks for his projects, and then attempted to screw them. He dragged them through the courts refusing to repay what was owed, in many cases being so successfully litigious and obstructive that they found it easier to settle with a partial repayment. In fact, the banks (except Deutsche Bank; DB) all blackballed Trump over a decade before he became president for being an untrustworthy, deceptive and bad faith financial partner. This is relatively well known, and you should really be aware already.

And even DB has had problems with Trump. In fact, rumour strongly suggests even DB was trying to disentangle themselves from him years ago. However his presidential campaign and subsequent made it too politically difficult for DB to do so.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,738
1,149
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
In context, let's remember that Trump systematically cheated banks, long before he was president.

Back in the 90s, Trump borrowed from banks for his projects, and then attempted to screw them. He dragged them through the courts refusing to repay what was owed, in many cases being so successfully litigious and obstructive that they found it easier to settle with a partial repayment. In fact, the banks (except Deutsche Bank; DB) all blackballed Trump over a decade before he became president for being an untrustworthy, deceptive and bad faith financial partner. This is relatively well know, and you should really be aware already.

And even DB has had problems with Trump. In fact, rumour strongly suggests even DB was trying to disentangle themselves from him years ago. However his presidential campaign and subsequent made it too politically difficult for DB to do so.
Not just banks. A LOT of companies. But he did buy out the mob
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,209
3,294
118
I wouldn't say CNN is "heavily biased" against Trump, but they tend not to do the hagiography for him that they do for 'respectable' politicians that don't embarrass our elites so much.
I think the US media is generally quite deferent to its politicians - far more so than the UK.

I would suggest there's a real "no smoke without fire" aspect to Trump. The hostility to Trump is not just the media, it's the unprecedented criticism from insiders, be they Trump's own appointees (Mattis, Bolton etc. do not have kind words for him), Republican Party executive wonks or civil servants. There's a reason for this. It's not that he's an outsider, it's that he's dangerously unethical and incompetent. The media have picked that right up and run with it.

We can only imagine the insanity of him raging against media lies, whilst at the same time busily spilling his guts to journalists. And when the results roll out, all he does is rage against "lies" and invite a new journo in. Let's remember that Trump left Michael Wolff free to roam the White House in its early days, and Bob Woodward special access in the later period. Neither showed him in a good light. He wants attention so much and thinks of himself so highly that it just doesn't seem occur to him people might find fault, and therefore if they find fault it's a lie. But surely the next one's going to tell truth, right? The second aspect of the insanity is that Trump could invite in the most craven and sycophantic of pro-Trump journalists to do that puff piece, but it won't satisfy him. Because deep down he knows they're a bootlicker, and what he wants is acceptance and plaudits and admiration from the best. It's both tragic and hilarious.