What do trump people think of his affair(s)?

[Wilson_90]

With a start date of January 2014, and out of 385 posts, over 200 were done in 48 hours starting Wednesday night in Women’s Issues, Etcetera, and Politics. Five LPSG women were followed and harrassed despite repeated requests to be left alone. All posts prior to Wednesday night were penis discussion—an abrupt change from the previous 4 years.

“5 women were followed and harassed”?

HAHAHAHAHAHA this is a public forum. Having a different opinion isn’t “harassment”. Grow up.

 

[IntactMale]

Does anyone notice that the ONLY piece of "evidence" that this asshole accepted and then later cited as the ONLY "evidence" any one provided to him "just happened to be" from Fox news ??.

I am still at a loss when it comes to knowing what this asshole even considers "evidence" to be ??.

Don't forget, he cited the DailyMail as his source of news while claiming Newsweek and CNN can't be trusted.

From WIkipedia:

The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research[11][12][13][14][15] and of copyright violations.[16]

 

[Wilson_90]

Don't forget, he cited the DailyMail as his source of news while claiming Newsweek and CNN can't be trusted.

From WIkipedia:

The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research[11][12][13][14][15] and of copyright violations.[16]

Newsweek and CNN can’t be trusted. They’ve both had to retract numerous stories regarding trump since 2016.

The daily mail has the document that she signed, citing that the affair didn’t happen. Judge on content.

The person who chose to site evidence of an affair CHOSE Fox News. They could’ve cited something else that said the same thing and I would’ve accepted it.

 

[IntactMale]

Newsweek and CNN can’t be trusted. They’ve both had to retract numerous stories regarding trump since 2016.

The daily mail has the document that she signed, citing that the affair didn’t happen. Judge on content.

The person who chose to site evidence of an affair CHOSE Fox News. They could’ve cited something else that said the same thing and I would’ve accepted it.

If you can't trust a news source that makes retractions, then there are no news sources left to choose from. The Daily Mail, which has a long list of retractions, can't be trusted by your own logic. So if the Daily Mail claims to have a signed document showing anything, how can that be trusted.

The fact that a news source retracts a story on its own is not a reason that the source cannot be trusted. In fact, retracting something that they got wrong is evidence that source isn't simply lying, otherwise they would claim that whatever source shows they are lying is the one that is in fact lying. That's the whole basis of the idea of fake news.

I've done some research on news sources and their reliability rating. Newsweek and CNN are both considered reliable sources while the Daily Mail is banned as a reliable source (you can find reliability ratings on news sources with a search of the internet, I won't do that for you). Their claim to have a document stating anything is questionable because of that. Even if they are in possession of that document I don't see any proof in the article that the Daily Mail is in possession of anything but a piece of paper. Additionally, the claim is that they have a "statement" in which she says that the affair did not happen and that she isn't just saying that because she was paid hush money. A statement is not a legal document, a person making a statement is free to lie, whether it is about the affair or the hush money, without legal consequence. However, the statement contradicts statements she has made previously, so how are we to determine when she is telling the truth. It also doesn't make any mention of why she was paid $130,000, other than that it wasn't hush money (If I was paid that kind of money and was asked to make a statement saying that it wasn't hush money then I would do it, no real repercussions).

Its my opinion, but the motivation for releasing this statement to the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable news source, instead of any reliable news source, is that the statement can be easily brushed away later if evidence to the contrary becomes available. Or from another perspective, only an unreliable news source is willing to publish the statement as that source has already shown that it is less interested in the veracity of the content than it is with the number banner ads that get viewed on their website. If the content of the statement can be verified then I would expect to start seeing being reported by many other sources where her statement itself is true or not.

I don't care who Donald Trump has sex with. I do care about reliable news sources being discarded in preference of unreliable news sources.

I didn't say anything about Fox News. My opinion is that they have a heavy bias, and I don't find them to be as reliable as other sources, but they are certainly more reliable than the Daily Mail.

 

[phonehome]

On top of that it is now reported in the Washington Post that because Michael Cohn was dragging his feet on paying her the agreed on 130K that Stormy Daniels via her lawyer had stated that "the deal was off"

When he did finally pay it was almost 2 weeks after the agreed upon date.

Washington Post Vs Daily Mail

Gee who figured out Watergate ??

Gee who has more Pulitzer's ??

Who got one just last year ??

 

[Wilson_90]

If you can't trust a news source that makes retractions, then there are no news sources left to choose from. The Daily Mail, which has a long list of retractions, can't be trusted by your own logic. So if the Daily Mail claims to have a signed document showing anything, how can that be trusted.

The fact that a news source retracts a story on its own is not a reason that the source cannot be trusted. In fact, retracting something that they got wrong is evidence that source isn't simply lying, otherwise they would claim that whatever source shows they are lying is the one that is in fact lying. That's the whole basis of the idea of fake news.

I've done some research on news sources and their reliability rating. Newsweek and CNN are both considered reliable sources while the Daily Mail is banned as a reliable source (you can find reliability ratings on news sources with a search of the internet, I won't do that for you). Their claim to have a document stating anything is questionable because of that. Even if they are in possession of that document I don't see any proof in the article that the Daily Mail is in possession of anything but a piece of paper. Additionally, the claim is that they have a "statement" in which she says that the affair did not happen and that she isn't just saying that because she was paid hush money. A statement is not a legal document, a person making a statement is free to lie, whether it is about the affair or the hush money, without legal consequence. However, the statement contradicts statements she has made previously, so how are we to determine when she is telling the truth. It also doesn't make any mention of why she was paid $130,000, other than that it wasn't hush money (If I was paid that kind of money and was asked to make a statement saying that it wasn't hush money then I would do it, no real repercussions).

Its my opinion, but the motivation for releasing this statement to the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable news source, instead of any reliable news source, is that the statement can be easily brushed away later if evidence to the contrary becomes available. Or from another perspective, only an unreliable news source is willing to publish the statement as that source has already shown that it is less interested in the veracity of the content than it is with the number banner ads that get viewed on their website. If the content of the statement can be verified then I would expect to start seeing being reported by many other sources where her statement itself is true or not.

I don't care who Donald Trump has sex with. I do care about reliable news sources being discarded in preference of unreliable news sources.

I didn't say anything about Fox News. My opinion is that they have a heavy bias, and I don't find them to be as reliable as other sources, but they are certainly more reliable than the Daily Mail.

TL;DR CNN and Newsweek aren’t reliable or unbiased. Any normal person can admit that. If it’s ok for you people to cite CNN, it’s ok for me to cite the daily mail.

 

[IntactMale]

TL;DR CNN and Newsweek aren’t reliable or unbiased. Any normal person can admit that. If it’s ok for you people to cite CNN, it’s ok for me to cite the daily mail.

Then what are the limits on what can be cited as a source? By this logic my opinion can be considered fact.

I never said anything about bias in regards to CNN or Newsweek, please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't cite either CNN or Newsweek, I only mentioned their reliability. I did say that the DailyMail has been flagged as an unreliable news source, and cited a source for that. If you can't figure that out based on their frequent stories about the existence of bigfoot and chupacabra, then you can do your own research and find the same thing.

There are media watchdogs which are unbiased and rate the reliability of news sources. I'm not going to give you an example, you'll just say its biased since you are only interested in what reinforces whatever idea you already have in your head.

Your TL;DR comment doesn't really relate to what was said. If its okay for you to cite a source that has been deemed unreliable then its okay for me to cite a blog in which I make up my own news stories. Both of these carry the same weight.

 

[Wilson_90]

Then what are the limits on what can be cited as a source? By this logic my opinion can be considered fact.

I never said anything about bias in regards to CNN or Newsweek, please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't cite either CNN or Newsweek, I only mentioned their reliability. I did say that the DailyMail has been flagged as an unreliable news source, and cited a source for that. If you can't figure that out based on their frequent stories about the existence of bigfoot and chupacabra, then you can do your own research and find the same thing.

There are media watchdogs which are unbiased and rate the reliability of news sources. I'm not going to give you an example, you'll just say its biased since you are only interested in what reinforces whatever idea you already have in your head.

Your TL;DR comment doesn't really relate to what was said. If its okay for you to cite a source that has been deemed unreliable then its okay for me to cite a blog in which I make up my own news stories. Both of these carry the same weight.

Well yes. Cite what you want. Judge it on content not source.

 

[MisterB]

I find it a pointless exercise to discuss American politics with foreigners who don't have a clue.

But sometimes it can be so much fun to watch them repeatedly make fools out of themselves....and this guy really does entertain me.

 

[Wilson_90]

But sometimes it can be so much fun to watch them repeatedly make fools out of themselves....and this guy really does entertain me.

A liberal....accusing someone else of making a fool of themself?

Lmao. It wasn’t conservatives licking toilet bowls and screaming at the sky

 

[MisterB]

I don't care about your differences in this thread, only the fact that ''foreigners'' are treated like shit around here by people who think they own this site.

The only "foreigners" that are, to quote you, "treated like shit around here by people who think they own this site", in my experience, are those that demonstrate repeated IGNORANCE. Again and again. Even after being provided with real facts that demonstrate their "reality" is not so real. So yeah, there's that. IF said "foreigners" were here to engage in real conversation and real debate, backed up by real facts, then the outcome would be different, eh?

 

[Wilson_90]

The only "foreigners" that are, to quote you, "treated like shit around here by people who think they own this site", in my experience, are those that demonstrate repeated IGNORANCE. Again and again. Even after being provided with real facts that demonstrate their "reality" is not so real. So yeah, there's that. IF said "foreigners" were here to engage in real conversation and real debate, backed up by real facts, then the outcome would be different, eh?

But you are the one demonstrating extreme ignorance

 

[IntactMale]

Well yes. Cite what you want. Judge it on content not source.

Is there a specific part of my post you are saying yes to? I hope its not my comment on citing a blog of my personal opinion when discussing matters of fact. I am not a reliable source, I can say whatever I want and there is no one to verify my status as a reliable source. I have no insight into the facts beyond what is published. The DailyMail has been deemed equivalent to a blog of my personal opinions, neither are reliable sources regardless of their content.

Judging it on content only, and not source, is dangerous. That is how you get settled into reinforcing whatever ideas you already agree with. It is exactly why news media is so polarized and facts cannot be agreed on.

 

[MisterB]

It's like I'm fucking psychic.

Yup, whilst responding to the psychotic! Rock on TNJ.

 

[MisterB]

Also is anyone really surprised that this asshole outed himself as 9/11 truther ??

People in Australia are such authorities on what happened HERE !!!!.

Probably has never even been to the US.

Good grief. I hope he never sets foot in this country. But then again, don't mentally ill people have trouble getting visas and passports? Or can one get them just as easily as a gun?

 

[Wilson_90]

Good grief. I hope he never sets foot in this country. But then again, don't mentally ill people have trouble getting visas and passports? Or can one get them just as easily as a gun?

Ahhh more insults. I’ve already set foot in your country numerous times.

 

[Wilson_90]

Is there a specific part of my post you are saying yes to? I hope its not my comment on citing a blog of my personal opinion when discussing matters of fact. I am not a reliable source, I can say whatever I want and there is no one to verify my status as a reliable source. I have no insight into the facts beyond what is published. The DailyMail has been deemed equivalent to a blog of my personal opinions, neither are reliable sources regardless of their content.

Judging it on content only, and not source, is dangerous. That is how you get settled into reinforcing whatever ideas you already agree with. It is exactly why news media is so polarized and facts cannot be agreed on.

Back to my original contention, if others are allowed to cite CNN, the guardian, the Hill, buzzfeed and so forth, I will cite the daily mail.

 

[IntactMale]

Back to my original contention, if others are allowed to cite CNN, the guardian, the Hill, buzzfeed and so forth, I will cite the daily mail.

You don't have any reply to my question? Do you know what you were saying yes to?

So you choose to cite unreliable sources in response to what you see as unreliable sources. You don't see that as a problem? Why not find a reputable publication to cite and put yourself on better standing than those you are debating with, at least in your own eyes. It sounds like you agree that the DailyMail is not reliable since you put them in the same category as other news sources that you feel are unreliable. Going down to your opponents level, even if that is only based on your own opinion, is not a good tactic.

I can't find any watchdogs that report CNN as being unreliable, and have no reason to believe that it is unreliable. When CNN reports a story, the story can also be found in other news sources, even those with an opposing bias. This is not true, as far as I have seen, regarding the article from the DailyMail that you posted. I would think that the release of a statement that clears the president of any wrongdoing would be a major news story, even for news sources that have a bias in either direction. The statement itself is simple enough to give it a positive swing towards either the right or the left.

I haven't seen any reference to Stormy Daniels statement anywhere but the DailyMail. This either means that its not newsworthy, the other news sources are still verifying the information (which would have been done quickly), or that the DailyMail is not concerned with their reputation as they are already deemed unreliable and so they will post any article that will get them more ad revenue regardless of their ability to verify it.

I've cited sources and shown logically how the DailyMail is not reputable. If you are going to put these other news sources on the same level as the DailyMail then please cite some information that shows that they have been deemed unreliable (No need for Buzzfeed, that is clearly opinion). Your own opinion that they are biased is not valid in proving or disproving their reliability.

 

[MisterB]

But you are the one demonstrating extreme ignorance

Ah, that favorite go to, fall back of you and your ilk--IGNORANCE. Let's talk about IGNORANCE, shall we?

Ya know, there's that old adage "Ignorance is bliss". Rampant at LPSG often. Cuz there seems to be a few (okay, more than a few at times) posters who must be just downright giddy happy. Over the fuckin' moon happy. Like my new friend Blanche.

I swear I do try, really I do, to see issues from various perspectives. But damn, I just can't follow this "logical ignorance" that can at times be so prevalent in these forums. I mean, smack your own forehead, are-you-kidding-me stupid-ass ignorance. And when totally debunked, they double-down. Or pull out that good ol' reliable "Whataboutism" as their comeback "argument". That's when I know. They are ignorant as fuck. That would be you Blanche.

I truly believe ignorance can be overcome; stupidity not so much. Another thing that saddens me is this type of person's lack of any curiosity to learn more about a given subject of which they are obviously ignorant. That would be you Blanche.

I guess it all boils down to what I think is a great advertisement for the Washington Post newspaper "If you don't get it, You don't get it". Blanche honey, you really don't get it. At all. Period.

 

[Wilson_90]

Ah, that favorite go to, fall back of you and your ilk--IGNORANCE. Let's talk about IGNORANCE, shall we?

Ya know, there's that old adage "Ignorance is bliss". Rampant at LPSG often. Cuz there seems to be a few (okay, more than a few at times) posters who must be just downright giddy happy. Over the fuckin' moon happy. Like my new friend Blanche.

I swear I do try, really I do, to see issues from various perspectives. But damn, I just can't follow this "logical ignorance" that can at times be so prevalent in these forums. I mean, smack your own forehead, are-you-kidding-me stupid-ass ignorance. And when totally debunked, they double-down. Or pull out that good ol' reliable "Whataboutism" as their comeback "argument". That's when I know. They are ignorant as fuck. That would be you Blanche.

I truly believe ignorance can be overcome; stupidity not so much. Another thing that saddens me is this type of person's lack of any curiosity to learn more about a given subject of which they are obviously ignorant. That would be you Blanche.

I guess it all boils down to what I think is a great advertisement for the Washington Post newspaper "If you don't get it, You don't get it". Blanche honey, you really don't get it. At all. Period.

This is so saddddddd omg. It’s almost like you set out to prove my point. You’re crying because you couldn’t counter empirical research.

Get out more.