Politics, The Friendship Breaking Topic

And he won the election like a mary-sue for the GoP.

 

I laughed a lot when I saw this:

 

I see your subversion of sports with political commentary.

Spoiler: Floating around the internet

PresidentTrump invited the Pope for lunch on his mega yacht, the Pope accepted and during lunch, a puff of wind blew the Pontiff's hat off, right into the water. It floated off about 50 feet, then the wind died down and it just stayed in place.

The crew and the secret service were scrambling to launch a boat to go get it, when Trump waved them off, saying "Never mind, boys, I'll get it."

The Donald climbed over the side of the yacht, walked on the water to the hat, picked it up, walked back on the water, climbed onto the yacht, and handed the Pope his hat. The crew was speechless. The security team and the Pope's entourage were speechless. Not even the Pope knew what to say.

But that afternoon, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN all knew how to cover the story. Their banner headlines read, "TRUMP CAN'T SWIM!"

 

https://www.google.com.ec/search?q=...hUKEwjc3e363vvRAhVH5iYKHVWIBSgQ_AUIBCgA&dpr=4

Apparently climate change might actually be a partial hoax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

http://m.washingtontimes.com

No idea how reliable this is yet. Am on phone.

It gets better, managed to listen to the interview he did the next day. He says "Russian hackers, and trolling, and information being stolen online." Ks worse, like the OPM information stolen by China during thr Obministration, maybe? Gosh he's a clown.

 

Trump continues to reject reality:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648\

People's opinion of Tump:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
53% Disapproval
42% Approval

The #PresidentBannon thing is getting under his skin.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828575949268606977

The Kremlin wants an apology for Bill O 'Reilly calling Putin a killer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC

Meanwhile another critic of Putin was poisoned.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...after-sudden-illness-sparking-poisoning-fears

Right-leaning site wonders, #PresidentBannon?
http://www.redstate.com/diary/jdruc...ed-steve-bannon-really-might-pulling-strings/

Fox reports this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...er-that-gave-bannon-seat-at-nsc-meetings.html

According the the state-propaganda wing:
"“The baby boomers are the most spoiled, most self-centered, most narcissistic generation the country’s ever produced,” says Bannon in a 2011 interview."
Here is the interview:

He looked much better before he was taking two glasses of alcoholism in morning. He sounded more reasonable back then, even if he was right-wing and was blaming Obama.

Spoiler

 

Breitbart has been upfront about what it is for years. CNN has been coasting on a reputation earned 40 years ago.

Prove CNN even produces confirmable truthful stories at a ratio of over 70% anymore. The last 2 1/2 years for examination.

 

He's mostly right though; his only failing in saying that was not expanding his statement to include all polls being fake news. The fact that every single one said he was going to lose the election should have clued everyone in on that.

 

Ha! I got another one from Reddit:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

 

Error: page not found.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
Sorry, was posting from my phone.

 

So your article says that the methodology behind the polls was flawed, as well as the fact that Democrat pundits were heavily criticizing any results that didn't show Hillary winning by an overwhelming landslide; how does that in any way serve to undermine my statement that we should no longer trust polls?

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/

 

This is a really interesting read. Not sure how legitimate his argument is, but he voices a lot of my concerns in a more intellectual way and he has a lot more experience with this stuff than any of us I imagine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/executive-power-run-amok.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

And to offset all the seriousness, here's something funny: https://twitter.com/i/moments/828724388631453696

My favorite tweet on that subject: https://twitter.com/briantedjones/status/828719709575139328

 

That someone knows more about a subject doesn't make them any less likely to lie or deceive, it just makes them better at it. That's why lawyers are a thing. Also, it feels like admitting that Trump has yet to actually overstep his authority is as painful for the guy as having his teeth pulled through his ears.



http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...s-envoy-religious-freedom-not-absolute-right/
Wut? Can I become straight, please?

EDIT: No seriously, what the fuck?
https://mobile.twitter.com/lamknight7/status/828582829063798784
_{https://mobile.twitter.com/PolitiKellyRite/status/828644404252569601
https://mobile.twitter.com/MissLizzyNJ/status/828582976325812225}

 

Are you going to actually contribute to the conversation, or are you just going to keep quoting sources without establishing context? Because if it's the latter, then I'm sorry; that doesn't constitute an argument, and you fail at debating.

 

He got less votes than Hilary. Given that winning the EC but losing the popular vote is supposed to be very uncommon, it is entirely reasonable to predict that he would lose. Because if we had a popular vote system, he would have lost.

 

You aren't actually taking those tweets seriously are you? Every single one is a joke meant to mock how the liberals reacted to Trump's win as far as I can tell.

 

It's arguable that he got less votes; especially considering what was revealed during Jill Stein's short-lived push for a recount. Personally, I am convinced that Hillary cheated her ass off (as she did in pretty much every aspect of the election), and the MSM (who by and large conducted and reported on the polls) helped her at every turn they could. There's a reason, after all, why Trump is still pushing for an investigation into the election; and my assumption is that he's trying to strip Hillary of the popular vote that her diehard supporter are still bandying about as justification to undermine his presidency.

 

It's both, both people actually being serious and people mocking them.

I mean, we had temporary Dem leader saying how stolen SocSec numbers and fake IDs are common amongst illegal immigrants, and without the anti-fraud voting prevention methods being blocked by Democrats as "racist"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_States#Push_for_photo_ID_requirements

All of those dead people voting, explained.

 

Bullshit. Hilary got several million more votes than Trump, and there are no signs of fraud on that level.

The reason Trump is pushing an investigation is because he is a thin skinned manchild who cannot abide any slight to his ego.

I won't even get started on the nonsense of accusing her of cheating.

 

Spare us your attempts at killing the messenger, Breitbart is as valid a source as any media outlet.

That a claim is made in one outlet or another means only that said claim has been made. It is on the viewer to examine the information presented and assess its veracity. It helps when proof of claims is included in the story. One would have to be desperately gullible to believe media outlets beholden to their target demographic, by way of advertising customers or fundraising, could ever be worthy of trust.

 

None of the three you linked are people being serious though.

I do remember the hashtag trending last night, so I won't be surprised if there's some people out there being serious, but all three of your examples are jokes.

 

Eh, I grabbed at random.

 

It's no biggie because we aren't actually starting a debate about it, but just keep the new rule for this thread in mind. Grabbing at random and not actually checking your sources could lead to you getting dinged for:

Anyways I gotta get ready for work and I find myself posting repeatedly in this thread when I said I'd try not to! /shakes fist angrily, all your fault Warp!

 

No it is not. Breitbart outright lies and fabricates news stories. They are not a credible source.

 

Mwahaha! Join me, we can debate the political alignments of every Dorito flavor!

 

The New York Times has published outright fabricated stories, as has the Washington Post, as has CNN. As have most (all?) major media outlets.

But by all means, keep trying to kill the messenger. Every complaints about how awful Breitbart is, how dreadful it is that people watch them, is an advertisement to anyone losing faith in leftist narrative that Breitbart is the place to go to find media targeting a different demographic, exploring different narratives.

 

Whereas I won't even bother trying to convince you otherwise; the election and everything after has shown me that there is little point in arguing with those who refuse to listen.

Seriously, I have no idea why anyone was surprised at Trump's victory; with reason and logic dead, the only path politics could take is demagoguery.

Everyone does that; from the New York Times to the Guardian. A better criticism in this day and age would be that he only provided a single source; because at least with multiple sources, we can compare them and adjust for bias.

 

Citation of said stories. In order to compare to what Breitbart has done, they have to have outright sought from the start to make a false news story, to the point of having several people working on it.

No they don't. Please provide evidence of the NYT or similar papers doing something on par with the false ACORN scandal, or the planned parenthood scandal. Both of which were literally made up.