4 pages into the thread and pgardn still refuses to address this and continues deflecting.
I like people who weren't captured...
Then wtf does this mean? Why was this added? Does this not imply some sort of failure because of being captured?
And really, you accuse me of some slight of hand and pull the same and then state you can't discuss this with people like me/ you.
Seriously?
I have addressed it.
Again.
I have trouble believing anything Trump says because he is all over the place.
Read the above again concerning Trumps comments about the military and about why I might have reservations about belief in his stance on post trauma. If you can't understand my reservations, then I can't help you. Go back to your painstaking email analysis/FBI insider bat analysis and write a letter to Trump explaining why he should not shy away from his pledge of throwing Hillary in jail.
Your belief on Trump's stance on PTSD has zero to do with the media purposely misrepresenting what he actually said on PTSD. So no, you still haven't addressed what the media did and you still continue to deflect.
You're deflecting. Bottom line, the media lied to you and you slurped it up like a good little sheep. And instead of engaging in one iota of critical thinking, you're blaming Trump for your own gullibility.
Why do you believe anything Trump says is true?
Again. I don't necessarily believe anything he says on PTSD. Especially after what he has said about all things military. I would say his choice of words, strong, was stupid and the media took advantage of it using the antonym, weak.
Do I need to continue to repost this?
Last edited by pgardn; 11-23-2016 at 02:48 PM.
Who is THE MEDIA?
What do YOU read for information?
So.
Is Trump going to put Hillary in Jail?
Slurper... The guy can't control his own mouth so I am a slurper. That makes you a slime mold that follows lies.
Two questions above Cluttered Notions.
"Mainstream Media" needs a new definition. The populace has moved on to other sources.
Congratulations, first time you actually addressed the media's dishonesty regarding what Trump said and it only took 5 pages.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. What Trump meant is irrelevant. What he said is as clear as day. What he said was misrepresented. Whether you believe what he said is beside the point.
Trump: A*B equals C
Media: Trump says A equals C
You: I don't trust Trump therefore the Media is right to publish whatever they like.
pgardn's posting about politics is a case study in a re who suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome.
Nope. It's bigger than that. We have a body of work. What Trump meant is not irrelevant. Especially in the context of what he has already said. I can't believe the guy in many areas. Because he lies. He has been caught dead in his tracks lying about important, to very mundane, facts. And he appears to be unable to stop.
Trump has decades of opinions he's freely shared. He's had decades of supporting democrats and democrat agendas. You act like he was born during the primaries.
There's no doubt that Trump has said some negative . Here, however, you are ignoring that the media intentionally misrepresented a specific comment he made by paraphrasing him out of context. You know that as well as I do, and the fact you're denying that's an issue is just your way of dodging the entire point of the OP which is that main stream media was in collusion with the Clintons.
double
Last edited by pgardn; 11-25-2016 at 08:05 PM.
Opinions?
He fckn sated never knew of Duke? He wrote about the guy. Negative yes. But outright lies that are so easy to hunt down? You understand exactly what I stated. The last sentence, you put it up in his syndrome analysis. Words do matter. It was completely silly using the word Strong in the context he did. He set himself up for the entertainment press. And I don't give two s which party he has or now plays with. I care about people that lie, especially ones that lie about things so easy to check and so insignificant.
Do you want me to continue with FACTUAL lies?
Now I need to ask you what the mainstream media is. What do YOU read that you believe? These broad ridiculous proclamations about the media are ridiculous. We MUST have a media that deals with past events and brings them forward. I can't help it if you hang on CNN or Fox. Nor do I READ the major network stuff. I listen to it when a story comes up immediately because they have people all over.
And I have already posted about the incredible significance of a Democratic Party hack leaking questions to Hillary as well as "news" programs hiring ex politicians and political hacks for analysis. Do you want me to go back and repost them?
Im not the day of the rope fantasy guy.
Yes, you know... what we were discussing? You're once again going to move the goalposts to anything other than the topic at hand. When you learn to stay on topic let me know. You seem to think every thread is an open discussion that you can just ramble on about whatever.
You know exactly what I am saying.
Its laughable you would adomonish anyone concerning staying on topic or moving goalposts.
Oh I know what you're saying. You are saying whatever you can say to steer away from the OP. Between that and paraphrasing, you appear to have no intention of honest discourse.
You don't want honest discourse.
And stop it with the paraphrasing bs. You know exactly what I am writing about.
Very few on here even want to touch on the giant blanket of main stream media and is supposed collusion with a preferred party. It's an easy target when one preferred candidate wishes to turn facts into fiction and expects to be granted immunity. They are now " opinions " . The opposition was scorched by this same supposed unreliable media as well. Clinton's attempt to hide was revealed by the same mainstream media. The Clinton foundation and her inexcusable sloppy use in emailing have been revealed with cold hard evidence by the same mainstream media.
Trump and his supporters had better get used to close examination. The campaign is over and lying will be called out. The entertainment press and SNL will have been thrown a giant bone as well. So there will be money to make if our president elect keeps giving "opinions" about what he has and has not done and said.
Luckily there is still money to be made in attempting to be accurate as well.
They corrected this story and tweet the following morning. It was a mistake, but not sure how that qualifies as collusion seeing as the mistake was fodder for hundreds of Right Wing sites, many of whom did not report the correction.
HuffPo is no more "MSM" than Drudge or Breitbart. Like I said, we need a new definition for Mainstream Media.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
