Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt formally exonerated


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You have said you do before. They died to protect a right, and more deaths will happen yet that so called right just remain enshrined.

Never said collateral damage. I have said that if asked by their families I would give them my condolences and tell them I support the second amendment regardless, at which point you always say you would like to see them kick my ass for that opinion.

 

51 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Why did he incite people to demonstrate at the Capitol? Fake election crap.

Ask Maxine Waters the senator from California that said he was not a legitimate president for four years, encouraging democrats to harass anyone in the administration including interns if they see them in public.  That was wrong of her and it was and is wrong of trump to continue with his stolen election narrative. But it’s legal so what can you do? 
 

 

55 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Get real jerk. 

It's bigger than any one incident.  Try wrapping your head around something outside of your personal world egomaniac. Attack the subject instead of me if you have the brains to. 

HA! If you don’t google it you can’t name one family or the shooter at Sandy Hook. Don’t lie, you know it’s true, and I don’t fault you for it, that was a long time ago. I’m honestly not sure what you’re hassling me about. Well that’s not true, I do know I just don’t get it. You decided long ago because I don’t submit to your emotionality when it come to the second amendment that you must pursue and belittle me at any opportunity.  That’s okay I enjoy it too. Not as much as with Setton because at least he’s has some manners but the truth is we’re not so different from each other, it’s why we’re here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Never said collateral damage. I have said that if asked by their families I would give them my condolences and tell them I support the second amendment regardless, at which point you always say you would like to see them kick my ass for that opinion.

 

Ask Maxine Waters the senator from California that said he was not a legitimate president for four years, encouraging democrats to harass anyone in the administration including interns if they see them in public.  That was wrong of her and it was and is wrong of trump to continue with his stolen election narrative. But it’s legal so what can you do? 
 

 

HA! If you don’t google it you can’t name one family or the shooter at Sandy Hook. Don’t lie, you know it’s true, and I don’t fault you for it, that was a long time ago. I’m honestly not sure what you’re hassling me about. Well that’s not true, I do know I just don’t get it. You decided long ago because I don’t submit to your emotionality when it come to the second amendment that you must pursue and belittle me at any opportunity.  That’s okay I enjoy it too. Not as much as with Setton because at least he’s has some manners but the truth is we’re not so different from each other, it’s why we’re here.

Steady on, mate. An Aussie bloke can make a fair dinkum shootist, given half a chance.:gun:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Steady on, mate. An Aussie bloke can make a fair dinkum shootist, given half a chance.:gun:

Cool video. Years ago I went shooting with my Dad and one of my friends and brought the manager of my band who had never shot a gun. He really didn’t want to go but I talked him into it. I could tell he was afraid the whole ride out to the remote place we were going and later he laughingly told me he went on a little paranoid trip in his head that we were going to kill him :lol:  We brought a wide assortment of guns with us, a .022 competitive pistol with a 100 round clip, a M-5, a colt 1911, at-15 and a few others. After my dad gave him some thorough instruction and started working him through the different guns it turned out he was a really good shot and he had a really good time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

Never said collateral damage. I have said that if asked by their families I would give them my condolences and tell them I support the second amendment regardless, at which point you always say you would like to see them kick my ass for that opinion.

Like?

I'd pay to see that. 

If they die for your principles, that's collateral damage. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with english. Adjectives don't change what your really saying. Their deaths should be reason for change. 

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

Ask Maxine Waters the senator from California that said he was not a legitimate president for four years, encouraging democrats to harass anyone in the administration including interns if they see them in public.  That was wrong of her and it was and is wrong of trump to continue with his stolen election narrative. But it’s legal so what can you do? 

Be more balanced regarding the situation? He did incite the mob. The mob did break public property and they did represent a real threat. The country was in grips due to constant rioting in recent weeks. It's a bad situation in its worst light. Babbitt must have known there was great risk doing what she was doing. She is not a martyr. She died doing what she thought was right, the man who shot her did what he does. That's that. Fault on every side. All no doubt influenced by the growing state of unrest in the states over the last four years.

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

HA! If you don’t google it you can’t name one family or the shooter at Sandy Hook. Don’t lie, you know it’s true, and I don’t fault you for it, that was a long time ago. I’m honestly not sure what you’re hassling me about. Well that’s not true, I do know I just don’t get it. You decided long ago because I don’t submit to your emotionality when it come to the second amendment that you must pursue and belittle me at any opportunity.

Yep true. Numbers stick more in my head than names. 

It's because those numbers are high, and I don't agree with your support of the second despite those numbers, that we mostly clash on this subject.

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

 That’s okay I enjoy it too. Not as much as with Setton because at least he’s has some manners but the truth is we’re not so different from each other, it’s why we’re here.

C'mon man. I've got manners coming out my ears.

I'm construction industry refined. I don't beat around the bush much and I'm not shy in my views. Yes we clash because of the subjects we converse on, which is probably about two or three subjects. Under different circumstances, from what I do know of you from the forum I'd agree we would have more in common than not regarding other subjects.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Steady on, mate. An Aussie bloke can make a fair dinkum shootist, given half a chance.:gun:

 

The best.

Long Tan is testament to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
On 8/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, psyche101 said:

Dude.

You're not becoming an anti vaxxing conspiracy nut I hope. 

The media is a guideline. Anyone who takes any single source for gospel is doing themselves a disservice. 

:lol: Not an anti-vaxxer by any means. more the case that I see the media far more cynically than you. When you write "the media is a guideline", my immediate reaction is suspicion - what is the media's guideline guiding me towards, and why do they want this narrative?  The media paints a picture of a divided society when the fact is the vast majority of us are just regular Joe's getting by.  Unfortunately sending a message that society is divided is causing division, and really just ends up pitting regular Joe's against each other.   

I guess going into more detail would send this a bit off topic. Anyways, I've got a huge week ahead, have a great one mate.
~ Regards,

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

:lol: Not an anti-vaxxer by any means. more the case that I see the media far more cynically than you. When you write "the media is a guideline", my immediate reaction is suspicion - what is the media's guideline guiding me towards, and why do they want this narrative?  The media paints a picture of a divided society when the fact is the vast majority of us are just regular Joe's getting by.  Unfortunately sending a message that society is divided is causing division, and really just ends up pitting regular Joe's against each other.   

I guess going into more detail would send this a bit off topic. Anyways, I've got a huge week ahead, have a great one mate.
~ Regards,

 

Mate, you haven't moved to America in the meantime? 

The guidelines I mentioned are just telling a version of current events. Without that, how would you know what is happening around us at the moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Mate, you haven't moved to America in the meantime? 

Nah, still proudly Australian!

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The guidelines I mentioned are just telling a version of current events. Without that, how would you know what is happening around us at the moment?

I'm not saying the media is useless. As you say, without them, how would we know what is happening? But it doesn't change that the media is in the business of selling fear, that's how they make money. In saying that, I've highlighted a line that pretty much covers my view - which version of current events is the media invested in telling? And who is being demonised by the media? 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

Nah, still proudly Australian!

 

I'm not saying the media is useless. As you say, without them, how would we know what is happening? But it doesn't change that the media is in the business of selling fear, that's how they make money. In saying that, I've highlighted a line that pretty much covers my view - which version of current events is the media invested in telling? And who is being demonised by the media? 

 

The yanks don't have aunty remember. That's our station. The people's taxpayer funded station run by the people. 

That's a big one over them. Paul Barry alone even. 

Some media is selling fear, some facts. The latter is not extinct I assure you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The yanks don't have aunty remember. That's our station. The people's taxpayer funded station run by the people

Aunty? Is that another name for the ABC? I've not heard that before, haha.  

That said, if this is about the ABC, then I hate to say it (because it means we'll yet again disagree) but the ABC is terrible. They twist stories all the time to suit their agenda. They aren't the worst out there, but they are far from an unbiased source an get away with far too much spin for a taxpayer funded national broadcaster! 

 

 

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's a big one over them. Paul Barry alone even. 

Some media is selling fear, some facts. The latter is not extinct I assure you. 

Unfortunately, while the latter may not be extinct it is very difficult to find in the mainstream media. But even if you are right and there is "some media selling fear, some facts", we're basically in agreement and simply need to haggle over how much the media sells fear vs facts.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Aunty? Is that another name for the ABC? I've not heard that before, haha.  

Yep, I thought it was pretty common actually.

25 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That said, if this is about the ABC, then I hate to say it (because it means we'll yet again disagree) but the ABC is terrible. They twist stories all the time to suit their agenda. They aren't the worst out there, but they are far from an unbiased source an get away with far too much spin for a taxpayer funded national broadcaster! 

Paul Barry rips media apart. Many retractions have made a headline change over his evaluation of seedy headlines. Then you have people like Mcaleff also putting a different spin again, or planet America, which I'd say definitely offers both sides of the coin. 

I don't think you would find too many stations with that level of diversity. And I have to say, I'd wager most Aussie posters would disagree from what I've read here. Media watch alone is a diamond most stations don't bother with.

25 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Unfortunately, while the latter may not be extinct it is very difficult to find in the mainstream media. But even if you are right and there is "some media selling fear, some facts", we're basically in agreement and simply need to haggle over how much the media sells fear vs facts.   

That's where multiple sources are required. And noted earlier, anyone who takes one source for gospel will be disappointed soon enough. 

Everything here is about CNN or Fox, but they really aren't the only choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Yep, I thought it was pretty common actually.

Paul Barry rips media apart. Many retractions have made a headline change over his evaluation of seedy headlines. Then you have people like Mcaleff also putting a different spin again, or planet America, which I'd say definitely offers both sides of the coin. 

I don't think you would find too many stations with that level of diversity. And I have to say, I'd wager most Aussie posters would disagree from what I've read here. Media watch alone is a diamond most stations don't bother with.

That's where multiple sources are required. And noted earlier, anyone who takes one source for gospel will be disappointed soon enough. 

Everything here is about CNN or Fox, but they really aren't the only choices.

Your views are rosy, but ultimately I can't agree with them. Multiple sources is a start, but it's not as simple as that. We have liberal leaning social media platforms deciding for the population whether a piece of news is "fake" or not, banning people for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. They are hiding information and running interference in collaboration with the rest of the media. If a story comes out that doesn't match their politics they are happy to ban you for "spreading misinformation". 

With such proactive attempts to silence dissenting opinions, it's becoming harder and harder to find accurate accounts of the news. As a result, people are getting very misinformed ideas about what people with different political views think, and it's slowly radicalising people on all sides (or, to use the words from my earlier post, the media is pitting us regular Joe's against each other).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Your views are rosy, but ultimately I can't agree with them. Multiple sources is a start, but it's not as simple as that. We have liberal leaning social media platforms deciding for the population whether a piece of news is "fake" or not, banning people for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. They are hiding information and running interference in collaboration with the rest of the media. If a story comes out that doesn't match their politics they are happy to ban you for "spreading misinformation". 

With such proactive attempts to silence dissenting opinions, it's becoming harder and harder to find accurate accounts of the news. As a result, people are getting very misinformed ideas about what people with different political views think, and it's slowly radicalising people on all sides (or, to use the words from my earlier post, the media is pitting us regular Joe's against each other).  

 

I don't think that's the majority opinion if Australian posters regarding ABC. 

Do you have ant specific examples? I don't follow social media much. When I do it's bikes, music and babes. That's about it. But I have seen recent baNs by Twitter, YouTube and other popular media platforms in the news, but I haven't seen one I don't feel is justified. 

There's always a way to get close to the source. It's usually somewhere in the middle of what you hear I find. I really don't trust bloggers or the like. I consider them opinions, not information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think that's the majority opinion if Australian posters regarding ABC. 

Do you have ant specific examples? I don't follow social media much. When I do it's bikes, music and babes. That's about it. But I have seen recent baNs by Twitter, YouTube and other popular media platforms in the news, but I haven't seen one I don't feel is justified. 

There's always a way to get close to the source. It's usually somewhere in the middle of what you hear I find. I really don't trust bloggers or the like. I consider them opinions, not information. 

I'm trying to avoid specific examples to keep this discussion on topic. But as I was writing my last post a couple of incidents were front and centre in my mind: 

1- 2020, people were being banned left and right for suggesting a certain laboratory had something to do with the pandemic. Suddenly when Joe Biden is president the bans stopped and people could suddenly talk about it. 

2- 2020, once upon a time, Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" and you were banned if you shared information about it. By the time social media allowed people to talk about it, the election was over and the contents of the laptop were no longer newsworthy. 

Regarding the ABC specifically, they are more subtle. They will write misleading headlines and then use half-quotes in articles to make it appear like they are impartial but they are not. The most obvious example that comes to mind is a couple of years old, it's how the ABC treated the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville in 2018 (if you don't recall that event, that was the one where Donald Trump referred to "very fine people" among a group of people, some of whom were Nazi's and white supremacists). I've yet to see a left-leaning news organisation who has accurately reported on that "very fine people" comment, in particular to clarify that what Donald Trump said was: 

"Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Meanwhile, according to the ABC, the important fact to point out was "However, Mr Trump also said there were "very fine people" on both sides in Charlottesville."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/donald-trump-explosive-media-conference-charlottesville/8811356
 

Really,, that's the takeaway for our unbiased, taxpayer funded national broadcaster? When Trump goes out of his way to clarify that he's NOT talking about white supremacists, the ABC doubles down on the narrative in the media without any attempt to fix the facts. It's this type of terrible reporting that has shaped the minds of American voters, and to a lesser extent Australian expectations of American politics. It's this kind of terrible reporting that allowed Joe Biden in the presidential debate to begin by saying to the camera "I want you to close your eyes, imagine a raging mob of white supremacists and Nazi's, they're ready to murder your neighbours, they are marching down the street with veins bulging in their necks, etc etc blah blah... now I want you to imagine this man (Trump) and when he was told all these things, he responded by saying there were very fine people in that group". 

And of course the public just accepted it. Oh, of course Trump said there were fine people in that group, everything the media has told me proves it! 

Sorry, I didn't want to drag this off topic, hopefully we don't go too far down a rabbit hole with this :)

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm trying to avoid specific examples to keep this discussion on topic. But as I was writing my last post a couple of incidents were front and centre in my mind: 

1- 2020, people were being banned left and right for suggesting a certain laboratory had something to do with the pandemic. Suddenly when Joe Biden is president the bans stopped and people could suddenly talk about it. 

2- 2020, once upon a time, Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" and you were banned if you shared information about it. By the time social media allowed people to talk about it, the election was over and the contents of the laptop were no longer newsworthy. 

Regarding the ABC specifically, they are more subtle. They will write misleading headlines and then use half-quotes in articles to make it appear like they are impartial but they are not. The most obvious example that comes to mind is a couple of years old, it's how the ABC treated the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville in 2018 (if you don't recall that event, that was the one where Donald Trump referred to "very fine people" among a group of people, some of whom were Nazi's and white supremacists). I've yet to see a left-leaning news organisation who has accurately reported on that "very fine people" comment, in particular to clarify that what Donald Trump said was: 

"Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Meanwhile, according to the ABC, the important fact to point out was "However, Mr Trump also said there were "very fine people" on both sides in Charlottesville."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/donald-trump-explosive-media-conference-charlottesville/8811356
 

Really,, that's the takeaway for our unbiased, taxpayer funded national broadcaster? When Trump goes out of his way to clarify that he's NOT talking about white supremacists, the ABC doubles down on the narrative in the media without any attempt to fix the facts. It's this type of terrible reporting that has shaped the minds of American voters, and to a lesser extent Australian expectations of American politics. It's this kind of terrible reporting that allowed Joe Biden in the presidential debate to begin by saying to the camera "I want you to close your eyes, imagine a raging mob of white supremacists and Nazi's, they're ready to murder your neighbours, they are marching down the street with veins bulging in their necks, etc etc blah blah... now I want you to imagine this man (Trump) and when he was told all these things, he responded by saying there were very fine people in that group". 

And of course the public just accepted it. Oh, of course Trump said there were fine people in that group, everything the media has told me proves it! 

Sorry, I didn't want to drag this off topic, hopefully we don't go too far down a rabbit hole with this :)

~ Regards, PA

In that one situation I agree with you completely concerning that quote. However, there is much more to it than that single quote, both Trump and his father were involved racial discrimination concerning housing practices starting in the late 1960s. When Donald took over the family business he continued his racial discrimination from the 70s through 90s, in his businesses. Then he took over the Birther scandle and pushed that nonsense past 2014, thats when he made the statement he may run for President. Thats when as any good Republican should have researched his background like I did. 

If you have never done that kind of research on Trumps you should, because no matter how bad the liberal media screwed up that quote it doesn't change the fact that Trump is a Racist and in all honesty I believe he was raised to be exactly what he is. 

Peace. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I don't think that's the majority opinion if Australian posters regarding ABC. 

Do you have ant specific examples? I don't follow social media much. When I do it's bikes, music and babes. That's about it. But I have seen recent baNs by Twitter, YouTube and other popular media platforms in the news, but I haven't seen one I don't feel is justified. 

There's always a way to get close to the source. It's usually somewhere in the middle of what you hear I find. I really don't trust bloggers or the like. I consider them opinions, not information. 

With The ABC there's the Knox Grammar scandal and the reluctance to report that story because of the conflict of interest from a member on both boards.

The stories on Taj Hilaly and Fraser Anning show you have to go searching for transcripts to understand the full context.

If you're satisfied with your outrage you won't go looking further.  Most news broadcast try to leave things on a light note, maybe people are just outraged at the 24 hour news channels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm trying to avoid specific examples to keep this discussion on topic. But as I was writing my last post a couple of incidents were front and centre in my mind: 

1- 2020, people were being banned left and right for suggesting a certain laboratory had something to do with the pandemic. Suddenly when Joe Biden is president the bans stopped and people could suddenly talk about it. 

2- 2020, once upon a time, Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" and you were banned if you shared information about it. By the time social media allowed people to talk about it, the election was over and the contents of the laptop were no longer newsworthy. 

Regarding the ABC specifically, they are more subtle. They will write misleading headlines and then use half-quotes in articles to make it appear like they are impartial but they are not. The most obvious example that comes to mind is a couple of years old, it's how the ABC treated the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville in 2018 (if you don't recall that event, that was the one where Donald Trump referred to "very fine people" among a group of people, some of whom were Nazi's and white supremacists). I've yet to see a left-leaning news organisation who has accurately reported on that "very fine people" comment, in particular to clarify that what Donald Trump said was: 

"Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Meanwhile, according to the ABC, the important fact to point out was "However, Mr Trump also said there were "very fine people" on both sides in Charlottesville."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/donald-trump-explosive-media-conference-charlottesville/8811356
 

Really,, that's the takeaway for our unbiased, taxpayer funded national broadcaster? When Trump goes out of his way to clarify that he's NOT talking about white supremacists, the ABC doubles down on the narrative in the media without any attempt to fix the facts. It's this type of terrible reporting that has shaped the minds of American voters, and to a lesser extent Australian expectations of American politics. It's this kind of terrible reporting that allowed Joe Biden in the presidential debate to begin by saying to the camera "I want you to close your eyes, imagine a raging mob of white supremacists and Nazi's, they're ready to murder your neighbours, they are marching down the street with veins bulging in their necks, etc etc blah blah... now I want you to imagine this man (Trump) and when he was told all these things, he responded by saying there were very fine people in that group". 

And of course the public just accepted it. Oh, of course Trump said there were fine people in that group, everything the media has told me proves it! 

Sorry, I didn't want to drag this off topic, hopefully we don't go too far down a rabbit hole with this :)

~ Regards, PA

I had a feeling that Trump might have been involved. He is usually the wedge dividing people through opinion.

I won't discuss those specific examples because it will take the thread wildly off topic, and there are threads on those subjects already. I'm happy to discuss them further there if you so wish to do so though. There's the Twitter ban too. Which is have to say I completely agreed with.

What you're not saying is how media watch balances those outcomes. It's not just one show on the ABC. That's the beauty of it. I know both sides of those stories because of the ABC.

Again. Paul Barry is the man who carries a great deal of balance and isn't scared to criticize the channel he is appearing on. Not many would do that. You might want to give his a show a look. Have you ever watched Planet America?

Thing is, Trump is also his own worst enemy. He does as much damage to himself as the media does. I really don't like Trump as a person. That's actually pretty common. And not due to the media, but his own mouth. And because he is such a terrible person, I actually don't care if the media bags him right or wrong. It's my personal view of karma I suppose. Not something I believe in, but I still find it somewhat justified. Honestly, if he visited the coast, I would have some eggs ripening out back to throw at him. Again, that's another discussion altogether but in my opinion, Trump is worse than 100 CNNs at their worst on his best days. Trumps supporters appear to be ready to fall on swords, the other side of the coin is just as extreme. He is more of a master at manipulation of people through media than every channel combined over their total existance. I can't say I've seen America, or the world, ever this divided over politics. The only thing that has changed is Trump. He is the common denominator here. You know that POS is still claiming a stolen election? How can anyone have an ounce of respect for a liar like that? And the other side of the coin does not have to be Hillary/Biden. Trump is a fine stand alone ahole without need for comparison. But just try and point out his flaws without a counter of but Clinton, but Biden, but Obama.... Meh. That says it all I reckon. I have many more of my own examples of why I find Trump sub human, but again, topic........

The media also won't let Trump face up as the low life scum he is without dragging down his opponents. That's a double edged sword. Now they have turned on Biden. Looks like it's his turn on the cross. The Trump fans will be in glee over the comimg weeks as Biden is torn apart slowly. America is a TV reality show these days with billions tuning in to watch the carnage. 

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/court/13489198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

With The ABC there's the Knox Grammar scandal and the reluctance to report that story because of the conflict of interest from a member on both boards.

The stories on Taj Hilaly and Fraser Anning show you have to go searching for transcripts to understand the full context.

If you're satisfied with your outrage you won't go looking further.  Most news broadcast try to leave things on a light note, maybe people are just outraged at the 24 hour news channels.

But they made the light of day. Eventually sure, but they got there 

ABC has Paul Barry. That's a balancing act other stations don't attempt. 

And who could forget the chasers.....

Nothing would scare those guys off.

Or the checkout. Informing consumers of their rights.

I think it's a community service.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

In that one situation I agree with you completely concerning that quote. However, there is much more to it than that single quote, both Trump and his father were involved racial discrimination concerning housing practices starting in the late 1960s. When Donald took over the family business he continued his racial discrimination from the 70s through 90s, in his businesses. Then he took over the Birther scandle and pushed that nonsense past 2014, thats when he made the statement he may run for President. Thats when as any good Republican should have researched his background like I did. 

If you have never done that kind of research on Trumps you should, because no matter how bad the liberal media screwed up that quote it doesn't change the fact that Trump is a Racist and in all honesty I believe he was raised to be exactly what he is. 

Peace. 

I raised three issues, you didn't have enough issue with the first two to even mention them. The third issue you agree with it completely, except you skim over it because Trump's done a bunch of other stuff. Incidentally I probably agree more with your comments than I disagree. Donald Trump isn't a perfect man, never said he was. He's not a racist, though. He does what he can get away with in order to make money. He's a capitalist, through and through, everything is secondary to that. 

But this isn't a mud flinging exercise so I'm not going to debate Trump any further.

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

I raised three issues, you didn't have enough issue with the first two to even mention them. The third issue you agree with it completely, except you skim over it because Trump's done a bunch of other stuff. Incidentally I probably agree more with your comments than I disagree. Donald Trump isn't a perfect man, never said he was. He's not a racist, though. He does what he can get away with in order to make money. He's a capitalist, through and through, everything is secondary to that. 

But this isn't a mud flinging exercise so I'm not going to debate Trump any further.

~ Regards, PA

Exactly where I'm coming from.

I did address the first two points bud, as so:

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I won't discuss those specific examples because it will take the thread wildly off topic, and there are threads on those subjects already. I'm happy to discuss them further there if you so wish to do so though

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I raised three issues, you didn't have enough issue with the first two to even mention them. The third issue you agree with it completely, except you skim over it because Trump's done a bunch of other stuff. Incidentally I probably agree more with your comments than I disagree. Donald Trump isn't a perfect man, never said he was. He's not a racist, though. He does what he can get away with in order to make money. He's a capitalist, through and through, everything is secondary to that. 

But this isn't a mud flinging exercise so I'm not going to debate Trump any further.

~ Regards, PA

The only issue I had with your comments is  issue I discussed, you choose to believe he isn't racist cool. However, did you do the research into his past before politics it doesn't appear you did. 

I didn't sling any mud, I made comments based upon on what you said and gave an alternative point of view based upon the facts that are in his history. 

Take Care and thanks for your reply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I had a feeling that Trump might have been involved. He is usually the wedge dividing people through opinion.

I won't discuss those specific examples because it will take the thread wildly off topic, and there are threads on those subjects already. I'm happy to discuss them further there if you so wish to do so though. There's the Twitter ban too. Which is have to say I completely agreed with.

I'm on the fence with the Twitter ban, I guess I probably lean towards your view but it isn't that simple either.

36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What you're not saying is how media watch balances those outcomes. It's not just one show on the ABC. That's the beauty of it. I know both sides of those stories because of the ABC.

I'll check it out more thoroughly, but I don't think it's as clear as you are making it out. 

36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Thing is, Trump is also his own worst enemy. He does as much damage to himself as the media does. I really don't like Trump as a person. That's actually pretty common. And not due to the media, but his own mouth. And because he is such a terrible person, I actually don't care if the media bags him right or wrong. It's my personal view of karma I suppose. Not something I believe in, but I still find it somewhat justified. Honestly, if he visited the coast, I would have some eggs ripening out back to throw at him. Again, that's another discussion altogether but in my opinion, Trump is worse than 100 CNNs at their worst on his best days. Trumps supporters appear to be ready to fall on swords, the other side of the coin is just as extreme. He is more of a master at manipulation of people through media than every channel combined over their total existance. I can't say I've seen America, or the world, ever this divided over politics. The only thing that has changed is Trump. He is the common denominator here. You know that POS is still claiming a stolen election? How can anyone have an ounce of respect for a liar like that? And the other side of the coin does not have to be Hillary/Biden. Trump is a fine stand alone ahole without need for comparison. But just try and point out his flaws without a counter of but Clinton, but Biden, but Obama.... Meh. That says it all I reckon. I have many more of my own examples of why I find Trump sub human, but again, topic........

The media also won't let Trump face up as the low life scum he is without dragging down his opponents. That's a double edged sword. Now they have turned on Biden. Looks like it's his turn on the cross. The Trump fans will be in glee over the comimg weeks as Biden is torn apart slowly. America is a TV reality show these days with billions tuning in to watch the carnage. 

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/court/13489198

You know that POS Maxine Waters still claims the election in 2016 was stolen. So does that POS Hilary Clinton, last time I saw her she was still calling Trump an "illegitimate president" . 
For the record, using the term "POS" to describe politicians and celebrities-turned-politicians we dislike doesn't help discussion, I'm pretty sure my comments here won't get any constructivefeedback because of my pejorative comments (I wouldn't have called either Waters or Clinton a POS except to make this point). But even if I removed the POS line, it doesn't change that Trump did claim a stolen election (and he lost a lot of my respect when he did that), but plenty of democrats to this day believe Trump stole the election in 2016, so I don't see it as that huge a deal.

That said, I've never claimed Trump was perfect. He's not perfect, and the media will never let you forget it, either! And this is where the other shoe drops in the media - it's not just about demonising Trump, it's about ignoring everything done on the other side of politics. The amount of stuff Joe Biden has said and done during the last two years that has just been ignored by the media is crazy, let alone what would happen if we draw on Joe Biden's 40+ year career in politics. I like to play a game when reading mainstream news - it's called "replace the name with Trump". I'll read about events, and then I ask myself "what would happen if Donald Trump had done this". Pretty much always when the scandal is negative, I can guarantee you that the noise in the media would have been elevated if it was Trump. I'm still deciding if that means that the media is intentionally downplaying other situations, or whether they simply make extra noise when it's Trump.

So I kind of agree with your general sentiment that it was Trump that changed things, but he's not the problem - it's the media that is the problem. 

36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The media also won't let Trump face up as the low life scum he is without dragging down his opponents. That's a double edged sword. Now they have turned on Biden. Looks like it's his turn on the cross. The Trump fans will be in glee over the comimg weeks as Biden is torn apart slowly. America is a TV reality show these days with billions tuning in to watch the carnage. 

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/court/13489198

Like I said, the media is in the market of pitting regular Joe's against each other. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
21 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

The only issue I had with your comments is  issue I discussed, you choose to believe he isn't racist cool. However, did you do the research into his past before politics it doesn't appear you did. 

I didn't sling any mud, I made comments based upon on what you said and gave an alternative point of view based upon the facts that are in his history. 

Take Care and thanks for your reply. 

I know quite a lot about his life pre-politics. I almost brought up a few scenarios in my last post to discuss it (his treatment of undocumented Polish immigrants during the building of Trump Towers was going to feature heavily in a previous version of my post that I wrote to you and highlights his business practises). Thanks for the chat :)

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm on the fence with the Twitter ban, I guess I probably lean towards your view but it isn't that simple either.

I'll check it out more thoroughly, but I don't think it's as clear as you are making it out. 

You know that POS Maxine Waters still claims the election in 2016 was stolen. So does that POS Hilary Clinton, last time I saw her she was still calling Trump an "illegitimate president" . 
For the record, using the term "POS" to describe politicians and celebrities-turned-politicians we dislike doesn't help discussion, I'm pretty sure my comments here won't get any constructivefeedback because of my pejorative comments (I wouldn't have called either Waters or Clinton a POS except to make this point). But even if I removed the POS line, it doesn't change that Trump did claim a stolen election (and he lost a lot of my respect when he did that), but plenty of democrats to this day believe Trump stole the election in 2016, so I don't see it as that huge a deal.

That said, I've never claimed Trump was perfect. He's not perfect, and the media will never let you forget it, either! And this is where the other shoe drops in the media - it's not just about demonising Trump, it's about ignoring everything done on the other side of politics. The amount of stuff Joe Biden has said and done during the last two years that has just been ignored by the media is crazy, let alone what would happen if we draw on Joe Biden's 40+ year career in politics. I like to play a game when reading mainstream news - it's called "replace the name with Trump". I'll read about events, and then I ask myself "what would happen if Donald Trump had done this". Pretty much always when the scandal is negative, I can guarantee you that the noise in the media would have been elevated if it was Trump. I'm still deciding if that means that the media is intentionally downplaying other situations, or whether they simply make extra noise when it's Trump.

So I kind of agree with your general sentiment that it was Trump that changed things, but he's not the problem - it's the media that is the problem. 

Like I said, the media is in the market of pitting regular Joe's against each other. 

 

The thing with the 2016 election is that there was no tampering/hacking in the battleground states.  The interference was manifested in Russia Today propaganda; so, WGAF?  The onus was still on the voter to make up their mind at the ballot; and, the results can be trusted to have reflected the will of the voter.

I know the Maxine Waters is a name I've heard before; but, the person attached to it is forgettable enough that I had to Google it again.  Nothing HRC says will aver be as bad as "We came, we saw, he died!"

I used to have a neighbour whom you could hear pump the accelerator of his car before starting it every morning.  The media isn't the problem.  The media has problems - you just have to know how to deal with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I know quite a lot about his life pre-politics. I almost brought up a few scenarios in my last post to discuss it (his treatment of undocumented Polish immigrants during the building of Trump Towers was going to feature heavily in a previous version of my post that I wrote to you and highlights his business practises). Thanks for the chat :)

~ Regards, PA

You are very welcome, but obviously you missed the information I spoke about in my first comments to you that does seem strange though, but I am not trying to be disrespectful. 

Take Care. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.