LOL ... says the tough guy on a message board.

Donald has really stepped in it this time. Every Trump Apologist this board has ever seen has had to come on here to say "but, but, but ..." This must be really bad.

To know how bad this really is you only have to know three things: the Apologists show up en masse; Trump ratchets up the racist language; and people like Ted Cruz (Ted Cruz!) start backing away from Donald.

But Donald won't back down! He wants to hold on to his base - i.e., those who live in The Villages. He won't let them down. Trumpettes are worried though. No matter how well the economy is, Donald is always capable of blowing it. He's just a tweet away at all times. But it's always entertaining.

Again, you have never been right about anything. Why would you start now?

By the way, who has to apologize for Trump? He is a great president if you take your blue lenses off.

Hey, your boy did back down. I'm surprised. I guess he's like Trivial Pursuit - tough talk, no back up. I guess Melania told him she tired of being associated with such mean people.

---

Now Peter Fonda is calling to target the children of ICE agents. Facial tic theater is going into overdrive. Someone is going to get hurt or killed soon if the left doesn’t get itself under control.

Where do you get this stuff? I'm sure "the left" will man the barracades based on something said by an eighty-year old actor.

That's the best you got to scare people? You can do better than that. Always go with the Trump/Drifter playbook - MS-13! MS-13! MS-13!

You're welcome.

---

LOL ... says the tough guy on a message board.

Donald has really stepped in it this time. Every Trump Apologist this board has ever seen has had to come on here to say "but, but, but ..." This must be really bad.

To know how bad this really is you only have to know three things: the Apologists show up en masse; Trump ratchets up the racist language; and people like Ted Cruz (Ted Cruz!) start backing away from Donald.

But Donald won't back down! He wants to hold on to his base - i.e., those who live in The Villages. He won't let them down. Trumpettes are worried though. No matter how well the economy is, Donald is always capable of blowing it. He's just a tweet away at all times. But it's always entertaining.

Hey, man, anytime you want to meet, we can. PM me.

Hahahahahaha. Thanks for coming through, bubba. Dr. Phil is on line one.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

That's the problem of being a cultist of a populist president. He's going to make you look foolish every now and again as he doesn't care about his positions outside of the reaction on fox or twitter.

---

That's a lot of words to say nothing. Or is it your’re desperate to assign blame while ignoring the last few decades? The quicker you have finally figured out this is a non-partisan issue ( I know, your party told you differently), the quicker you can suggest a course of action. You realize many of the lawmakers current in office were there long before Trump, and this problem was there long before Trump. It's easy to scream morality, or this is so wrong...okay how does it get fixed? An open border free for all? All law get cast aside? If it were so cut and dry, you'd think it would be a nonissue after 200 years.

---

I saw someone else post about abortion/child separation and it was equally stupid. Can we stop with the false equivalencies?

In case your reading comprehension reeks as bad as mine supposedly does, my post was a sarcastic response to the ridiculous false equivalency of which you speak.

Pretty sure it isn't as much reading comprehension as it is the constant battle of interpreting the inconsistent thought you type in between bong hits. But I will give credit where it's due. You make some good points on occasion...I think.

---

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

What's worse being outraged about bathroom usage, safe spaces, gay's trying to force cake makers to make cake or people being outraged by locking kids up ?

Trunpettes actually the most offended snowflakes. Just awaiting hannity to tell them what to be offended about next

---

LOL ... says the tough guy on a message board.

Donald has really stepped in it this time. Every Trump Apologist this board has ever seen has had to come on here to say "but, but, but ..." This must be really bad.

To know how bad this really is you only have to know three things: the Apologists show up en masse; Trump ratchets up the racist language; and people like Ted Cruz (Ted Cruz!) start backing away from Donald.

But Donald won't back down! He wants to hold on to his base - i.e., those who live in The Villages. He won't let them down. Trumpettes are worried though. No matter how well the economy is, Donald is always capable of blowing it. He's just a tweet away at all times. But it's always entertaining.

Hey, man, anytime you want to meet, we can. PM me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---

Hey, your boy did back down. I'm surprised. I guess he's like Trivial Pursuit - tough talk, no back up. I guess Melania told him she tired of being associated with such mean people.

I find it odd that instead of crediting Trump for changing a controversial policy, you instead imply that he's weak for changing his position.

---

I, for one, had never seen said photo so I guess my allegiance can remain the same.

According to your article, the photo was also debunked by Snopes and Politico. Are you now ready to back off any claim they are biased towards the left?


I didn't think so.

If you'd take a peek outside your cocoon, you'd see that the MSM does this all the time.

Tweet goes out, gets tens of thousands of likes... then only after the fact is a retraction or correction is made (if it's actually done at all.)  If there is a correction, it gets no where near the reach the original false information did.  Unfortunately, the damage of the false information is already done.

But ignore that, too.  Anything to keep up your false world where none of this is happening.  The left is engaged in an active and unending war on the truth.  It must do so to keep the flawed, damaged ideology alive.  There's no real benefit to you to continually deny it, unless it preserves your beliefs that are truly in need of re-evaluation.

Yesterday, not long after we had this discussion, ABC ran a false graphic claiming Manafort was charged with 5 counts of manslaughter.

EVEN MORE fake news from MSM... or are you going to deny this too.  What's the spin for this... not really MSM?  I didn't see it, so it didn't happen?

The cult of the left is real, and they simply can't help themselves.  1984 is no joke, the left wants to make it real.  The "resistance" is doing everything to manufacture a coup.  Because for the left, their politics is their religion.

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

---

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

There are certain terms that need to be voluntarily barred from political discourse. 1984 is one of them. 1984 is useful for recognizing ways in which governments might manipulate the masses. Imo, if you want to recognize aspects of the book that are relevant to our society, you should quote a specific passage. Without specificity, it becomes rhetoric. When you notice both sides pointing to the same book as evidence the "other" is being manipulative, it's going to be difficult to have honest dialogue.

That said, there is virtually zero accountability in the media for falsely reporting information.

Having said that, unlike some retracted stories, this one seems very likely to have been an accident. There is no benefit to running a story that has nothing to do with Russian collusion.

---

There are certain terms that need to be voluntarily barred from political discourse. 1984 is one of them. 1984 is useful for recognizing ways in which governments might manipulate the masses. Imo, if you want to recognize aspects of the book that are relevant to our society, you should quote a specific passage. Without specificity, it becomes rhetoric. When you notice both sides pointing to the same book as evidence the "other" is being manipulative, it's going to be difficult to have honest dialogue.

That said, there is virtually zero accountability in the media for falsely reporting information.

Having said that, unlike some retracted stories, this one seems very likely to have been an accident. There is no benefit to running a story that has nothing to do with Russian collusion.

Frankly, there's zero accountability for government on both sides.  Our representatives (including our president) spout bold-faced lies consistently with absolutely zero repercussions.

---

This could very easily be Trump supporters listening for what position they have to support in order to exuse away his missteps.

---

There are certain terms that need to be voluntarily barred from political discourse. 1984 is one of them. 1984 is useful for recognizing ways in which governments might manipulate the masses. Imo, if you want to recognize aspects of the book that are relevant to our society, you should quote a specific passage. Without specificity, it becomes rhetoric. When you notice both sides pointing to the same book as evidence the "other" is being manipulative, it's going to be difficult to have honest dialogue.

That said, there is virtually zero accountability in the media for falsely reporting information.

Having said that, unlike some retracted stories, this one seems very likely to have been an accident. There is no benefit to running a story that has nothing to do with Russian collusion.

A fair take, only if you're only scratching the surface and not taking a deeper dive.  Media manipulating the masses is quite relevant, particularly since they are openly rooting for political parties and politicians, in addition to influencing and shaping public opinion rather than simply reporting.  I disagree on dialogue, honest dialogue is very easy.  All it takes is honesty.

This was not an honest "accident."  An accident is placing a true headline with a mismatched story.  An accident isn't running a headline that is a complete lie.

It's fact that MSM runs stories that have nothing to do with Russian collusion every day and pretend it's relevant to their Trump collusion narrative.  Let's not pretend they don't.  Every single thing Manafort has been charged with has nothing to do with so-called Russian collusion and the Trump administration.  I suppose you're right in that, if we can't agree on the most basic facts, such as this, then there can't possibly be a rational discussion.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

This is going to turn into a semantics discussion.I am arguing that a blanket reference to 1984 has become a rhetorical device. No one hears that and changes their mind unless they already believe it. Because it's seen as scaremongering, it is ignored. I feel it's much better to put the effort into showing WHY something is like 1984; the more specific, the better. Personally, I think it's better to not mention it, as it's basically the new Hitler argument (although that seems like it's back en vogue as of late).

Also, I am not saying that the media can't be manipulative. Both sides have their version: for the left, it's fox and for the right it's everything else. As far as that headline being an "accident," there are many ways something could get published unintentionally. My point was that most lies that are influenced by bias are subtle. As it pertains to MSM, this involves lots of lies of omission, data that is interpreted from a political leaning, or choosing to run with a story from an unverified source. Very, very few stories are as blatantly wrong as the one you linked above.

Let's assume for a second that the media was trying to manipulate a large group of people and is perfectly ok with using a blatant lie.... would you go with "Paul Manafort charged with 5 counts of murder" or "Paul Manafort connected to Russian journalist death in England?" The later would at least play into preconceived notions of who Paul Manafort is and how Trump is connected to Russia. The former has no ties to previously held notions, so even people who want to believe it probably had their doubts.

Even if we take for granted that the media is full of bias, all I am saying is that there is going to be an accidental headline from time to time, and I'd caution about making them all intentional. The ironic part (at least as far as I'm concerned), is that it's these kinds of lies that carry the most clout because they're so obviously wrong. People on both sides should be more critical of subtle bias, imo.

---

If you'd take a peek outside your cocoon, you'd see that the MSM does this all the time.

Tweet goes out, gets tens of thousands of likes... then only after the fact is a retraction or correction is made (if it's actually done at all.)  If there is a correction, it gets no where near the reach the original false information did.  Unfortunately, the damage of the false information is already done.

But ignore that, too.  Anything to keep up your false world where none of this is happening.  The left is engaged in an active and unending war on the truth.  It must do so to keep the flawed, damaged ideology alive.  There's no real benefit to you to continually deny it, unless it preserves your beliefs that are truly in need of re-evaluation.

Yesterday, not long after we had this discussion, ABC ran a false graphic claiming Manafort was charged with 5 counts of manslaughter.

EVEN MORE fake news from MSM... or are you going to deny this too.  What's the spin for this... not really MSM?  I didn't see it, so it didn't happen?

The cult of the left is real, and they simply can't help themselves.  1984 is no joke, the left wants to make it real.  The "resistance" is doing everything to manufacture a coup.  Because for the left, their politics is their religion.

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

---

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

Man, you right-wingers are so paranoid. So afraid of so many things. Everyone is out to get you - right?

For someone whose favorite boggeyman is the "MSM" (So what's your non-MSM source of enlightment?) you seem to follow them very closely. Strange.

I guess the easiest way to go through life is to blame others for any non-favorable outcome. A Byron LeftTown you ain't, but you do seem to be worried about so many people and things. And they talk about TDS. You have Everything Derangement Syndrome.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Hey, your boy did back down. I'm surprised. I guess he's like Trivial Pursuit - tough talk, no back up. I guess Melania told him she tired of being associated with such mean people.

I find it odd that instead of crediting Trump for changing a controversial policy, you instead imply that he's weak for changing his position.

Did you hear him talk about his executive order? I think he said "strong" about 23 times. It seemed clear that he was changing course because he was told to, not because it was the right thing to do.

This is just like the travel ban. Donald and his administration are incredibly inept. No planning, no foresight, no checking with experts and figuring out repercussions. Just act on Donald's whims and wing it. And they end up looking like idiots and suffer sever political harm.

Donald continues to be his own worst enemy (he always has been) and I don't see it changing.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I find it odd that instead of crediting Trump for changing a controversial policy, you instead imply that he's weak for changing his position.

Did you hear him talk about his executive order? I think he said "strong" about 23 times. It seemed clear that he was changing course because he was told to, not because it was the right thing to do.

This is just like the travel ban. Donald and his administration are incredibly inept. No planning, no foresight, no checking with experts and figuring out repercussions. Just act on Donald's whims and wing it. And they end up looking like idiots and suffer sever political harm.

Donald continues to be his own worst enemy (he always has been) and I don't see it changing.

In other words, you don’t want to give him credit for doing something you wanted him to do, you credit someone else and leave him with what you think describes him better. 

Makes sense.

---

Hey, your boy did back down. I'm surprised. I guess he's like Trivial Pursuit - tough talk, no back up. I guess Melania told him she tired of being associated with such mean people.

I find it odd that instead of crediting Trump for changing a controversial policy, you instead imply that he's weak for changing his position.

Did you hear him talk about his executive order? I think he said "strong" about 23 times. It seemed clear that he was changing course because he was told to, not because it was the right thing to do.

This is just like the travel ban. Donald and his administration are incredibly inept. No planning, no foresight, no checking with experts and figuring out repercussions. Just act on Donald's whims and wing it. And they end up looking like idiots and suffer sever political harm.

Donald continues to be his own worst enemy (he always has been) and I don't see it changing.

In other words, you don’t want to give him credit for doing something you wanted him to do, you credit someone else and leave him with what you think describes him better. 

Makes sense.

You think this guy is going to give anybody credit? He probably hasn't had a rational thought that was actually his own since middle school.

---

I don't really care if he gives Trump credit or not. I just think Adam's position is representative of a larger problem. It doesn't matter if Trump said strong one thousand times. If your goal was to get him to change his policy, then the reasonable position is to acknowledge that he can be influenced by the right cause and/or with the right pressure. Instead, the response is to criticize a different attribute of Trump (or by some others: the reversal itself). This seems to indicate that the goal is not policy change, but slander, more or less. Anyone that's being honest with themselves can't think this is civil political dialogue.

The reality is, if you read Trumps executive order, nothing has changed. It seems to be more of a PR move. This would be the area to be criticized, in my opinion, if I were annoyed with Trump's border policy. Most people don't read anything, they just follow the talking heads.Trump is basically trying to get a district judge to make an exemption for the children to remain with their families, but I'll believe it when I see it. Without that, he can't change what he's doing and still prosecute families crossing the border illegally. To be fair, Trump did say he expects legislation to follow (then it won't matter what the judge rules), but, again, I'll believe it when I see it.

---

I don't really care if he gives Trump credit or not. I just think Adam's position is representative of a larger problem. It doesn't matter if Trump said strong one thousand times. If your goal was to get him to change his policy, then the reasonable position is to acknowledge that he can be influenced by the right cause and/or with the right pressure. Instead, the response is to criticize a different attribute of Trump (or by some others: the reversal itself). This seems to indicate that the goal is not policy change, but slander, more or less. Anyone that's being honest with themselves can't think this is civil political dialogue.

The reality is, if you read Trumps executive order, nothing has changed. It seems to be more of a PR move. This would be the area to be criticized, in my opinion, if I were annoyed with Trump's border policy. Most people don't read anything, they just follow the talking heads.Trump is basically trying to get a district judge to make an exemption for the children to remain with their families, but I'll believe it when I see it. Without that, he can't change what he's doing and still prosecute families crossing the border illegally. To be fair, Trump did say he expects legislation to follow (then it won't matter what the judge rules), but, again, I'll believe it when I see it.

You seem to be confused. I should give him credit? For what? You say yourself "it seems to be more of a PR move." Go ahead and give him credit for a PR move if you wish. You seem to be an easy mark.

And show me the proof that "most people don't read anything, they just follow the talking heads." You mean you just follow the talking heads? Or just the people who don't agree with you?

Donald is way in over his head. He proves it every day. If he keeps listening to idiots like Stephen Miller he'll continue to look and act like the dimwitted politician he's showing himself to be.

---

I find it odd that instead of crediting Trump for changing a controversial policy, you instead imply that he's weak for changing his position.

In other words, you don’t want to give him credit for doing something you wanted him to do, you credit someone else and leave him with what you think describes him better. 

Makes sense.

You think this guy is going to give anybody credit? He probably hasn't had a rational thought that was actually his own since middle school.

lol ... you're really reaching now. Look, I understand you're embarrassed. You credit Donald continuously, only to see him change course right after you post.

You're really getting insecure, so if whining about me is part of your therapy, I'm glad to help.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Yesterday, not long after we had this discussion, ABC ran a false graphic claiming Manafort was charged with 5 counts of manslaughter.

EVEN MORE fake news from MSM... or are you going to deny this too.  What's the spin for this... not really MSM?  I didn't see it, so it didn't happen?

The cult of the left is real, and they simply can't help themselves.  1984 is no joke, the left wants to make it real.  The "resistance" is doing everything to manufacture a coup.  Because for the left, their politics is their religion.

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

---

https://twitter.com/ABCNewsPR/status/100...9813732357

Man, you right-wingers are so paranoid. So afraid of so many things. Everyone is out to get you - right?

For someone whose favorite boggeyman is the "MSM" (So what's your non-MSM source of enlightment?) you seem to follow them very closely. Strange.

I guess the easiest way to go through life is to blame others for any non-favorable outcome. A Byron LeftTown you ain't, but you do seem to be worried about so many people and things. And they talk about TDS. You have Everything Derangement Syndrome.

Not afraid of anything at all, particularly not you or your flaccid blather.

Funny how cockroaches like you scurry and get bothered when the light of truth exposes you (and your kind.)

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Credit: to publicly acknowledge someone as a participant in the production of.

That's your generic google definition. To credit Trump with writing a policy to keep families together should be an easy thing to do if your goal was to keep families united. This doesn't mean you honor Trump for something you believe he should have done anyways. It's a recognition that he changed what you feel he should have changed. You, and several other within the political sphere, are choosing to malign him for doing what you requested, when you should be reveling in a victory. The fact that you imply he is weak for changing his policy seems odd to me. It only makes sense if your primary goal is tarnishing him. If that's the case, why bother engaging in a real conversation with you?

Along the same line, before you call me an easy mark, you should learn to read. The EO doesn't change anything without a district judge granting an exemption in this case. If the judge grants an exemption, then Trump can lawfully keep families together (which will just become a different issue altogether). If she doesn't, he is legally bound to carry on separating families. It's weak only if he fails to get that exemption.

My point, since you missed it the first time, was that if you had read what was written in the EO, you might have had a valid complaint with regards to his policy. Instead you say that Trump is weak. Nothing of what I have written so far has taken a political side. I've just laid out the facts.

Please pick one that you think is incorrect if you want to have a discussion in good faith.

---