ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

I don't understand why this thread isn't closed for toxicity.

And i don't mean the topic of the thread but just the general behaviour of people in this thread.

I wonder when people lost the motivation to respectfully disagree but still enjoy one anothers company.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Xavderion wrote:

"""""""""""""""factcheckers""""""""""""""" have been debunked many times. Usually they hang themselves up on some technicality and call the claims misleading because of it. Only when talking about Trump though.

HAHAHA! Caught again!

The black youth unemployment rate was much higher in 2015 than in 2016.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000018

so... that fact check debunked the fact check that was supposedly debunking a fact check? @_@

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"""""""""""""""factcheckers""""""""""""""" have been debunked many times. Usually they hang themselves up on some technicality and call the claims misleading because of it. Only when talking about Trump though.

HAHAHA! Caught again!

The black youth unemployment rate was much higher in 2015 than in 2016.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000018

Not sure what you're smoking my dude, look again at those numbers.

July 2015: 27.9%

June 2016: 33.8%

"

Boem wrote:

I don't understand why this thread isn't closed for toxicity.

And i don't mean the topic of the thread but just the general behaviour of people in this thread.

I wonder when people lost the motivation to respectfully disagree but still enjoy one anothers company.

Peace,

-Boem-

Because the last one was and this one opened up less than a day later. TencentGGG know a quarantine zone when they see one, Boem.

"

Boem wrote:

I wonder when people lost the motivation to respectfully disagree but still enjoy one anothers company.

Peace,

-Boem-

2004 during the #surprisesurprise Presidential elections. Really started in 2000 with the #surprisesurprise Presidential elections. I blame the, ahem, two-party system which has all but locked out third party candidates. Watch any nationally televised debate. How often do you see a candidate not of the D or R party affiliation? Every third election, maybe? That leads to very black-and-white, ahem, thinking.

Hit me how bad it is when it spilled into real life and had a cousin and his father no show a wedding because they didn't want to see each other after a disagreement over politics. Terrible. On the upside, another one of my male cousins pulled a hottie, and I got to catch up with people I hadn't seen in a decade. Even had a few drinks towards the end of the night.

RIP banhammer forums

To me it's a case of common sense and logic, but I guess that's something a lot of people have little time for these days.

Still, here's how it goes.

WHICH is more likely:

a serial grifter, a real estate mogul from New York known for dodgy financial practices with a long, easily-traced history of deceiving others who lives by mottos like 'never admit you're wrong' and 'always be the loudest, biggest person in the room', whose books have been debunked as ghost-written, whose many business ventures have either crashed and burned or had to be bailed out one way or another...who went to great lengths to create an idealised version of himself on a reality TV show...rising to power in an era of intolerance and continuing his practice of lying and exaggerating, of self-inflating and cajoling but on a national or global scale...;

OR

an establishment that has for decades, certainly from before said grifter's time, prided itself on telling the truth behind what people hear and see, on exposing corruption and abuse (Deep Throat, Spotlight, etc), attracted some of the finest speakers and writers in modern history to contribute, a largely nebulous entity full of internal contention but held together by a spirit of investigation, deduction and observation...suddenly turning into liars and deceivers just because they don't like the aforementioned individual?

And on top of that, there is a certain resonance to the fact that it's the long-time journalists from New York who are the first to display acrimony and wariness regarding someone infamous from their home town. There's a reason New York based publications and veteran media writers treat Trump like a cheap mobster and an incorrigible bully. If anyone would know, surely it'd be them.

And then there is the easily proven information about his upbringing and how he behaved. A lot of it is self-proclaimed, stuff that should come across as vaguely horrifying but somehow just adds to his image as a big man who doesn't take any shit. Because punching a teacher is somehow admirable, or gluing together your little brother's lego because you think your building is better is somehow an attribute you want in a future president. Or, yknow, stealing knives and keeping them hidden from your parents. Throwing rocks at the neighbour's toddler.

All the dots connect with ridiculous ease, and yet for some inexplicable reason, those still following him, supporting him, refuse to see any of it. Or if they do, they accept these things as 'fine as long as he's doing his job'. Which of course he isn't. He couldn't get a wall built when he controlled most of the government. Naturally he's not getting one now that the other side has the means to deny him. Government is still in shutdown. He keeps getting played by other world leaders, including Kim Jong Un who hasn't even vaguely stopped his nuclear missile program. The guy is a joke but the number of people still supporting him surely isn't.

You can't have respectful disagreement when the disconnect is that strong, Boem. You just can't. Every time I've seen someone come in here TRYING to be respectful, they've been driven to resort to meme-ing, name-calling and other pointless activity because it's just that frustrating. Or they just leave, if only for a while.

50 years ago (muh Watergate) the media wasn't as desperate as today. A lot has changed, which lead to an increase in sensationalized and badly (because super quickly or not at all) researched and therefore often fake news. Also journalists are owned by politicians. We know that because of Wikileaks.

"

We know Wikileaks is operated by the Kremlin mob.

Doesn't matter who operates it, the emails are real. I bet over at Media Matters you're still mad about that.