Biden Harris Presidential Transition

[moxy 1,051]

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Their jobs are whatever they want them to be. However, it was entirely the media that attacked Trump, particularly when it came to pushing the Clinton/DNC funded dossier. If they were doing their jobs as people understood them, they'd have bat that horse you-know-what down. They did what they did, and the only change here is Trump didn't bend the knee. Bush did, Romney did, the usual hacks Republican voters kept voting for. Obama did attack FOX news, the idea that he didn't go after press is as mythical as the scandal free propaganda. The dictator thing, ridiculous hyperbole, much like Trump was persistently likened to Hitler and white supremacy, we know how it goes. None of this stuff works, at all.

It's funny, all I hear from the right is how the media didn't report on the Steele dossier. (which was, by the way, originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website who was looking to dig dirt up on Trump. The DNC bought it later, they did not "commission" the dossier) And yet, everyone seems to know about the Steele dossier. It's almost as if the media actually reported on it. The Steele dossier was commissioned because Republicans absolutely did not want Trump to be the nominee. Marco Rubio shut it down when it was clear that Trump was going to win the nomination. If you're going to say the Steele dossier was "horse you-know-what," start with the Republican party.

 

Saying Obama "attacked" Fox is pretty disingenuous. Yeah, Obama slammed Fox on occasion (deservedly imho) but there's no way a rational person can compare what Obama said about Fox to Trump's constant drum beat against "the media," including calling them "the enemy of the people." It's a ridiculous comparison.

[Boiler 45,947]

Well certainly a Nobel of some sorts seems a given

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, B_J said:

The thing is, I didn't really have an opinion on the issue, meaning I didn't know what should be done.  I tried explaining that....

 

If I understand correctly, people come over without authorization.  When they are caught, they are given a court date.  Do we just let them go and hope they come back on their date?  I've heard differing numbers on how successful that is.  Do we keep them in detention until their date arrives?  What about if they have kids?  That's how we end up with kids in cages.  I think they are only allowed to hold kids like that for a short time.  So, then we have the issue of removing the kids from the parents.  I don't see an easy answer.  Letting people go and hope they come back?  Keep the kids with their parents?  Remove kids from their parents?  I really don't know.

 

And that's when I get called a racist.

They're separated from the people they're with specifically as per a settlement under Clinton because kids too often would be smuggled into the country and kept with coyotes/strangers, and one doesn't need much imagination to understand how that was dangerous for them. So they opted to keep children separate. I never did find out if this settlement was really enforced during the rest of the Clinton, for Bush, but we saw it enforced under Obama and the famous "kids in cages" photo falsely (and famously) attributed to Trump was actually during Obama's second term. As is usual for the utterly idiotic discourse that's permeated the US and western society, because the idea was to trash Trump, they marketed this in the usual "Trump racist" "Trump terrible" fashion, and the same people who've endlessly smeared Trump his entire term and much of his candidacy propagandized it, and moreover, contributed further to polarizing the populace, when very, very few people would morally be okay with "separating children from their parents". The relevant parts of the issue were specifically ignored to market the usual party talking points of both parties. End result? Zero changes, zero compromise, zero usefulness. The entire point was to hurt Trump, if "brown kids" were that important, people would be trying to negotiate and get something done. This is the kind of stuff I've long been fed up of, and a major contributing factor to leaving the US to begin with back in 2011.

[nykolos 711]

31 minutes ago, moxy said:

Imagine Obama calling the press the "enemy of the people." The right would have lost their collective minds.

When you feed American's and the world distortions, false narratives and outright lies, engaging in blatant activism for one party,  you can't possibly say the press is serving in the best interest of the people..  They are, IMO, the enemy of people, Trump was right.

 

 

 

 

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, nykolos said:

When you feed American's and the world distortions, false narratives and outright lies, engaging in blatant activism for one party,  you can't possibly say the press is serving in the best interest of the people..  They are, IMO, the enemy of people, Trump was right.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, it's a completely different narrative when the President of the United States says it. Words matter when they are spoken by the person holding the highest office in the land. That kind of speech is dangerous. It's one of the many different things that led to a seditious attack on our capitol.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

It's funny, all I hear from the right is how the media didn't report on the Steele dossier. (which was, by the way, originally funded by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website who was looking to dig dirt up on Trump. The DNC bought it later, they did not "commission" the dossier) And yet, everyone seems to know about the Steele dossier. It's almost as if the media actually reported on it. The Steele dossier was commissioned because Republicans absolutely did not want Trump to be the nominee. Marco Rubio shut it down when it was clear that Trump was going to win the nomination. If you're going to say the Steele dossier was "horse you-know-what," start with the Republican party.

 

Saying Obama "attacked" Fox is pretty disingenuous. Yeah, Obama slammed Fox on occasion (deservedly imho) but there's no way a rational person can compare what Obama said about Fox to Trump's constant drum beat against "the media," including calling them "the enemy of the people." It's a ridiculous comparison.

Throwing identity doesn't mean anything to me, it doesn't matter to me who "first" reported the dossier and what their ideological or party leaning is. Maybe for you, it does.

 

The wonderful MSM pushed it and didn't critically tear it to pieces as would be expected of any reputable people vested with any interest in informing, even if with a slant that everyone has. Telling me about the Republican Party means nothing to me, I'm not a Republican, I have nothing inward to look at there. That's right in the fact that Republicans helped on that, particularly the litany of neocons in Congress, and mostly, the Senate, if I drilled down further, and certain subcommittees with ridiculously corrupt relationships with the media and bureaus. 

 

The "media" decided to regurgitate a common narrative, they lied to people endlessly, and participated in the creation of a more polarized US than I've seen in my lifetime, perhaps not seen since the Civil War. Instead of demanding a more honest media, you simply deflect to Republicans, as any party fanatic does, and dismiss Obama's role in that. I'm not claiming Trump wasn't biased against the media, nor that he didn't verbally attack them, but he didn't do it until they started smearing him. I don't blame him whatsoever. That spine against a corrupt, pathetic, lying media, is precisely a quality needed in any leader when being attacked that way. Doing nothing about it clearly didn't help Romney nor McCain. Trump attacked them but where his policies (authority) was focused was jobs, diplomacy, border security, the very issues he campaigned on.

 

There's a lot of persona qualities I'd "prefer" in a President, but in the end, you're hiring someone for a job, not to be your husband or wife or sports team mascot. 

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

Throwing identity doesn't mean anything to me, it doesn't matter to me who "first" reported the dossier and what their ideological or party leaning is. Maybe for you, it does.

Yes it does, because every time you bring it up, you make sure to tie it to Clinton/the DNC. If you were interested in honest discussion you wouldn't obfuscate like that. But you do. Every time you mention the dossier.

[TBoneTX 45,953]

27 minutes ago, Boiler said:

certainly a Nobel of some sorts seems a given

For having a "dynamite" administration?

[Prizm123 1,086]

1 hour ago, B_J said:

The more I think about this, the more I don't understand how you can disagree with what I said.  Most of the mocking and ridicule of the "other side" comes from the left.  That doesn't mean that the left is worse than the right, I mean that the left has a much larger platform to voice these attacks.

 

 

i dont give a flying monkeys behind about celebrities or talk shows or any of that useless nonsense, i am talking about regular people, some of which i see every day on this very board. i am talking about the guy who scared my mother by telling her to go back to china and take her china virus with her, i am talking about the people with the flags everywhere who are trying to incite confrontation by puffing out their chest and being bullies, i am talking about every single person who talks down to anyone who doesnt support trump or the right or who look the other way when someone they support does the exact same behavior they are whining about. i am talking about the people who deny that there is a pronounced right wing bias that fuels the hate that has been ongoing since the clinton years. i am talking about the garbage on talk radio, the conspiracy theorists, the people who make hyperbole a career and try to whip up a frenzy like the NRA......

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, moxy said:

Yes it does, because every time you bring it up, you make sure to tie it to Clinton/the DNC. If you were interested in honest discussion you wouldn't obfuscate like that. But you do. Every time you mention the dossier.

Clinton and the DNC is where the dossier came from (the origin of it), they went to Steele and Fusion and paid them to come up with dirt on Trump and Steele used their connections to source it to friendly people in media, Congress, and the bureaus. Just because the first "media" they supposedly distributed it to was a favorable "conservative" outlet means nothing. You're simply attempting to reinterpret the point of my post to something of your liking so you can then lie about where the dossier came from. Facts don't require your acknowledgement to being facts, and if someone's relationship with them is this adversarial, it's not something for me to correct. The dossier is unequivocally Clinton and the DNC's, they wanted it, they paid for it to be made, and their channels of distribution (minus I think one FBI connection of Steele's) were largely used for it. The discussion goes on, even if people want to muddle the discussion by prattling about things that aren't even remotely contested.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Clinton and the DNC is where the dossier came from, they went to Steele and Fusion and paid them to come up with dirt on Trump and Steele used their connections to source it to friendly people in media, Congress, and the bureaus. Just because the first "media" they supposedly distributed it to was a favorable "conservative" outlet means nothing. You're simply attempting to reinterpret the point of my post to something of your liking so you can then lie about where the dossier came from. Facts don't require your acknowledgement to being facts, and if someone's relationship with them is this adversarial, it's not something for me to correct. The dossier is unequivocally Clinton and the DNC's, they wanted it, they paid for it to be made, and their channels of distribution (minus I think one FBI connection of Steele's) were largely used for it. 

So very wrong.

 

As I said, the Steele dossier was commissioned by a conservative website to dig up dirt on Trump FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. That fell through when it was clear that Trump was going to win the nomination. Marco Rubio, a Republican, shut it down.

 

Yes, Clinton's campaign then went to Fusion and did the same exact thing the Republicans did, which was to pay for dirt on Trump.

 

So either both parties did something wrong, or neither. Stop making this sound like some nefarious Democratic hit job, unless you're prepared to concede it was also a nefarious Republican hit job.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

So very wrong.

 

As I said, the Steele dossier was commissioned by a conservative website to dig up dirt on Trump FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. That fell through when it was clear that Trump was going to win the nomination. Marco Rubio, a Republican, shut it down.

 

Yes, Clinton's campaign then went to Fusion and did the same exact thing the Republicans did, which was to pay for dirt on Trump.

 

So either both parties did something wrong, or neither. Stop making this sound like some nefarious Democratic hit job, unless you're prepared to concede it was also a nefarious Republican hit job.

where it came from is irrelevant. what is relevant is the FBI issued illegal FISA warrants for partisan reasons to spy on the opposition candidate 

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

where it came from is irrelevant. what is relevant is the FBI issued illegal FISA warrants for partisan reasons to spy on the opposition candidate 

I know. It's always irrelevant when it's not the Dems. Well... let's do this thing, those goal posts aren't gonna move themselves.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

I know. It's always irrelevant when it's not the Dems. Well... let's do this thing, those goal posts aren't gonna move themselves.

so you got nothing huh ?

[moxy 1,051]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so you got nothing huh ?

I got nothing when it's all deflecting and moving goal posts.