Donald Trump 2019

[Blotto 23,570]

14 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

That was like 13 years ago.  Do you think it's at all possible that some people actually grow over time and change their positions and opinions as they grow?  

If you were that stupid and gullible 13 years ago, guess what.....you're still that stupid and gullible. You're exactly the type of rube to fall for Trump's bullshit, and you have.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Blotto

[elfenix 34,331]

Yeah, but I didn't say that.  It's arguable and debatable, but it's an objectively good thing, in my opinion, that we all question the same apparatus that sold us on WMDs amirite?  

You mean Republican political appointees?

[TornACL 7,722]

Just now, American Swindle said:

Never said he (Trump)was skeptical, only that during this whole shit show the last 3 years, that it's good the general public is more skeptical of the information they are being fed by the narrative controllers.  

Doesn't matter, we'll still get the shit sandwich come 2020. 

Is it? 

Is it a net benefit for society if a portion of that skeptical public then gets duped by snake oil salesman because "they said it on the internet"? Is that healthier? 

In your opinion are Alex Jones and Breitbart narrative controllers or not? Do you think their audience is skeptical of their claims?

[Brisketexan 105,286]

1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

Never said he (Trump)was skeptical, only that during this whole shit show the last 3 years, that it's good the general public is more skeptical of the information they are being fed by the narrative controllers.  

Doesn't matter, we'll still get the shit sandwich come 2020. 

But they aren't.

They are following the Trumpian lead.  They are ONLY "skeptical" of stories that do not agree with their pre-existing positions.  That's it.  The do not question reporting because "I value objective truth, and want to ensure that I am only consuming true information."  The question reporting because "that story does not agree with my preferred narrative, therefore it is fake news."

That's a huge fucking leap BACKWARDS with respect to our information-consumption.

Refusing to simply accept news reporting as true can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing, depending on WHY you do so.  Our reasons for doing so indicate that our ability to collect, process, and use information to reach informed conclusions has flown BACKWARDS.  There is no silver lining.

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But they aren't.

They are following the Trumpian lead.  They are ONLY "skeptical" of stories that do not agree with their pre-existing positions.  That's it.  The do not question reporting because "I value objective truth, and want to ensure that I am only consuming true information."  The question reporting because "that story does not agree with my preferred narrative, therefore it is fake news."

Brisket, I'll serve up a high hanging curve ball:  do you ever question reporting by (say) CNN or MSNBC or Bloomberg or WaPo or the NYT?  If so, why?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

51 minutes ago, elguapo said:

 

Well you admitted as much in another thread:

But I also know who you are IRL.

Not cool. You should be given a timeout for threatening to doxx someone 

[American Swindle 102]

Just now, TornACL said:

Is it? 

Is it a net benefit for society if a portion of that skeptical public then gets duped by snake oil salesman because "they said it on the internet"? Is that healthier? 

In your opinion are Alex Jones and Breitbart narrative controllers or not? Do you think their audience is skeptical of their claims?

Yeah, that's like.....ya know....my opinion....man.  

I don't know about it being a net benefit, but the driving force in all of this discussion should simply be the search for truth.  

Alex Jones nor Breitbart isn't on national TV so it's a little different but for all intents and purposes, they both cater to their bases and I'm sure some in their bases are skeptical about a lot of claims they make.  

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

Just now, American Swindle said:

Alex Jones nor Breitbart isn't on national TV so it's a little different but for all intents and purposes, they both cater to their bases and I'm sure some in their bases are skeptical about a lot of claims they make.  

I'm pretty sure that percentage of their base is miniscule.

[Brisketexan 105,286]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Brisket, I'll serve up a high hanging curve ball:  do you ever question reporting by (say) CNN or MSNBC or Bloomberg or WaPo or the NYT?  If so, why?

Surly answer:

Sure I do.  Mostly, it's because of their font choice.  Sometimes, it's because the reporter doesn't have a great rack.

Sane answer:

Of course.  Anytime I read/consume anything, and the facts in any way seem "off" (often, that's because they seem incomplete), I dig in a bit deeper.  Also, when I consume information, I tend to separate the underlying facts from the editorializing.  And I try not to consume much pure editorializing at all (e.g., I don't listen to Tucker much, I don't listen to Maddow much).

[elguapo 4,586]

4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Not cool. You should be given a timeout for threatening to doxx someone 

That's not a threat, it's just a statement.  I'm not interested in doxxing anyone dummy.

[American Swindle 102]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But they aren't.

They are following the Trumpian lead.  They are ONLY "skeptical" of stories that do not agree with their pre-existing positions.  That's it.  The do not question reporting because "I value objective truth, and want to ensure that I am only consuming true information."  The question reporting because "that story does not agree with my preferred narrative, therefore it is fake news."

That's a huge fucking leap BACKWARDS with respect to our information-consumption.

Refusing to simply accept news reporting as true can be a very good thing, or a very bad thing, depending on WHY you do so.  Our reasons for doing so indicate that our ability to collect, process, and use information to reach informed conclusions has flown BACKWARDS.  There is no silver lining.

You are defining cognitive dissonance.  Both sides have exhibited this phenomenon repeatedly.  I agree, it's cultish and unreasonable. But I still maintain that their are many out there that have pivoted toward the search for objective truth and have evolved to look outside of their confirmation bias-sources.   

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Surly answer:

Sure I do.  Mostly, it's because of their font choice.  Sometimes, it's because the reporter doesn't have a great rack.

Sane answer:

Of course.  Anytime I read/consume anything, and the facts in any way seem "off" (often, that's because they seem incomplete), I dig in a bit deeper.  Also, when I consume information, I tend to separate the underlying facts from the editorializing.  And I try not to consume much pure editorializing at all (e.g., I don't listen to Tucker much, I don't listen to Maddow much).

Right.  As I said, high hanging curve ball.  It's crazy how easy it is to view the information one consumes with a skeptical eye, without being a complete cynic.  (Disregarding your ledge schtick, of course.)

[Brisketexan 105,286]

8 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

But I still maintain that their are many out there that have pivoted toward the search for objective truth and have evolved to look outside of their confirmation bias-sources.   

You have no basis for that contention.  I mean, it's a nice wish.

But the existing "skepticism" as to "mainstream media" is in no meaningful way motivated by a collective love of the principles of objective truth.  It is motivated by confirmation bias.  

People who look skeptically on what CNN or Wapo or the NYT reports fall into one of two classes: 1) people who always look at ANY reporting with some degree of "trust but verify" -- those people haven't changed path since Trump came to power.  They consumed information thoughtfully before, they still do; and 2) people who look critically on those sources as "FAKE NEWS," but slavishly lap up everything presented by Fox news, Breitbart, etc.  They are confirmation-bias consumers of the highest degree.

Again, there is no silver lining.  There is no bright side.  The ONLY thing that Trump has driven is that folks who agree with him now only consume "news" that feeds their preferred narrative, and they actually consume every morsel of that "reporting" with ZERO skepticism.  These are people who believe that Trump watched Muslims dancing on rooftops in Jersey as the towers fell on 9/11....and the list goes on, for pages and pages.

Trump is not selling an approach to objective truth.  Nobody has pivoted toward a search for objective truth.  The only increase in "skepticism" is a function of people rejecting information that doesn't confirm their biases.  That's it.  There is nothing else at any material level.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Brisketexan

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

If you don't give this some 'Haha' rep, you don't know how to properly surly. 

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

That's rich given the last 3 years we were hammered with arguably the biggest conspiracy theory/hoax in history. 

What evidence do you have that I'm a 9/11 truther/conspiracy theorist? 

Your straw man BS is what it is, bullshit. 

How the fuck do you know this without the report being released?  Want to fill us in on some 9.95 bullshit you're privy to? 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

How the fuck do you know this without the report being released?  Want to fill us in on some 9.95 bullshit you're privy to? 

lmao

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

Just now, Fozzz said:

lmao

Nice try troll, not taking the bait. 

[jimmyjazz 46,109]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

lmao

Literally the worst possible response to that post.  Congratulations.

[ChiTownDoc 21,154]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

 I've personally met some of them.  They were pissed off Bernie Supporters that hated Hillary and voted Trump to protest.  

Cassandra Fairbanks is one of them.  I mentioned her in the Assange thread. 

The answer we would have accepted was Fozz.  Sorry, better luck next user name. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

Who is Cassandra Fairbanks?

And who, because of Trump is now "question the narrative fed to them by the mainstream media"?

[David Dennison 18,946]

6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

The answer we would have accepted was Fozz.  Sorry, better luck next user name. 

Always remember, Fozzz supports Tulsi Gabbard.

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

13 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

How the fuck do you know this without the report being released?  Want to fill us in on some 9.95 bullshit you're privy to? 

Trump told him so. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,727]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Who is Cassandra Fairbanks?

And who, because of Trump is now "question the narrative fed to them by the mainstream media"?

She's the white Candace Owens.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

 I've personally met some of them.  They were pissed off Bernie Supporters that hated Hillary and voted Trump to protest.  

Cassandra Fairbanks is one of them.  I mentioned her in the Assange thread. 

Are you serious with that Cassandra Fairbanks crap?

Yes there are plenty of people who would’ve supported Bernie, hated Hillary, and wound up voting for trump. Those same people also voted for Obama. They are definitely not liberal, are almost all white with a few Hispanics, live in the Midwest, and are either low income or all income depending on their age and the particular state. They are also socially somewhat conservative. 

So unless you’re posting directly from Michigan or Wisconsin, I’m calling bullshit. 

Those same people aren’t gonna make the same mistake again. Fool me once...

[BrickHorn 18,283]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

That's rich given the last 3 years we were hammered with arguably the biggest conspiracy theory/hoax in history. 

What evidence do you have that I'm a 9/11 truther/conspiracy theorist? 

Your straw man BS is what it is, bullshit. 

This is so great.

elguapo: American Swindle is credulous and easily duped into believing stupid shit.

American Swindle: Oh yeah?  Would a credulous, easily duped person recognize that an ongoing criminal investigation resulting in numerous convictions and guilty pleas in multiple jurisdictions is nothing but a made-up hoax perpetrated by an alliance of the Rothschilds and the Lizard People, operating out of their joint headquarters in a secret pizza parlor sex dungeon?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Is this the same el guapo from the scat site? 

[kevwun 15,861]

No, no it's not.  He stayed behind and talks to himself in various threads about the leftist menace.  He's even a moderator.

Edited April 17, 2019 by kevwun

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

14 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Is this the same el guapo from the scat site? 

No. This is no space elguapo. 

[American Swindle 102]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Are you serious with that Cassandra Fairbanks crap?

Yes there are plenty of people who would’ve supported Bernie, hated Hillary, and wound up voting for trump. Those same people also voted for Obama. They are definitely not liberal, are almost all white with a few Hispanics, live in the Midwest, and are either low income or all income depending on their age and the particular state. They are also socially somewhat conservative. 

So unless you’re posting directly from Michigan or Wisconsin, I’m calling bullshit. 

Those same people aren’t gonna make the same mistake again. Fool me once...

Cassandra is an example of a leftist activist that voted Trump having supported Bernie no? She's just an example I was giving, but I know now she's outwardly re-thinking her support given the Trump's role in continuing the Yemen proxi-war.  

I for one met one personally in Austin, but don't expect you to believe me because it doesn't confirm your bias.  What is your source that outlines the demographics of the Bernie Bros that voted Trump?  

[elguapo 4,586]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

No. This is no space elguapo. 

In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face.

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

11 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Cassandra is an example of a leftist activist that voted Trump

Obviously an idiot. 

[TornACL 7,722]

28 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Cassandra is an example of a leftist activist that voted Trump having supported Bernie no? She's just an example I was giving, but I know now she's outwardly re-thinking her support given the Trump's role in continuing the Yemen proxi-war.  

I for one met one personally in Austin, but don't expect you to believe me because it doesn't confirm your bias.  What is your source that outlines the demographics of the Bernie Bros that voted Trump?  

"I've personally met lots" = One internet personality and one person you met one time in Austin. Cool story, bro. 

But yes, we're skeptical because of our "bias". Not skeptical because you're completely untethered from truth. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,797]

This reminds me of when we spent the whole day arguing with some dumbass over whether or not California is a shit hole with crumbling bridges and roads. 

[Biff Tannen 45,715]

Just now, Doc Sam Beckett said:

This reminds me of when we spent the whole day arguing with some dumbass over whether or not California is a shit hole with crumbling bridges and roads. 

This reminds me of the time you tried to drill a hole in your head.  Remember that?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

It would have worked if you didn’t stop me.

[Asithappens 974]

9 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

This reminds me of when we spent the whole day arguing with some dumbass over whether or not California is a shit hole with crumbling bridges and roads. 

I was just out in the Bay Area.

The roads were excellent. 

[Js1 85,548]

Y'all got swindled by a troll. 

[retread 2,951]

KJU celebrating Mueller report

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[4th&Five 41,586]

Every bromance must end sometime. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,923]

 

[EuroHorn 3,268]

 

[shnsajax 3,591]

Never understood why Trumpkins always enjoy picturing that fatass as a naked bodybuilder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atomheartbevo 89,782]

3 minutes ago, shnsajax said:

Never understood why Trumpkins always enjoy picturing that fatass as a naked bodybuilder.

You’re talking about a group of people who bash France every chance they get, but then you get The Fire and they line up to suck France off, because something something Western Civilization something something.  

[American Swindle 102]

This is so great.
elguapo: American Swindle is credulous and easily duped into believing stupid shit.
American Swindle: Oh yeah?  Would a credulous, easily duped person recognize that an ongoing criminal investigation resulting in numerous convictions and guilty pleas in multiple jurisdictions is nothing but a made-up hoax perpetrated by an alliance of the Rothschilds and the Lizard People, operating out of their joint headquarters in a secret pizza parlor sex dungeon?

Ok, this is objectively funny and all, but I can’t help but ask: Is it your position that Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere in the presidential elections?

What evidence was used to spurn the Mueller probe in the first place? Was that evidence credible?

If it is confirmed that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, would you define the Mainstream Media peddling of the hysteria over the past 3 years a conspiracy theory?

I for one have maintained that it was all a hoax since Hillary reacted to the Trump in the debate with her, “we have 17 intelligence agencies that can confirm....” bullshit.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Dennison 18,946]

Just now, American Swindle said:

Ok, this is objectively funny and all, but I can’t help but ask: Is it your position that Trump conspired with the Russians to interfere in the presidential elections?

What evidence was used to spurn the Mueller probe in the first place? Was that evidence credible?

If it is confirmed that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, would you define the Mainstream Media peddling of the hysteria over the past 3 years a conspiracy theory?

I for one have maintained that it was all a hoax since Hillary reacted to the Trump in the debate with her, “we have 17 intelligence agencies that can confirm....” bullshit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's already been confirmed that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

[Captainant 27,741]

It's amazing how you still manage to work hillary into your justifications for trumps malfeasance

[American Swindle 102]

Are you serious with that Cassandra Fairbanks crap?
Yes there are plenty of people who would’ve supported Bernie, hated Hillary, and wound up voting for trump. Those same people also voted for Obama. They are definitely not liberal, are almost all white with a few Hispanics, live in the Midwest, and are either low income or all income depending on their age and the particular state. They are also socially somewhat conservative. 
So unless you’re posting directly from Michigan or Wisconsin, I’m calling bullshit. 
Those same people aren’t gonna make the same mistake again. Fool me once...

I mean, NPR cites 1 in 10 Bernie Bros voted Trump, is this bullshit or no?
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[American Swindle 102]

It's already been confirmed that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

So Trump is going to go to jail then right? Has Trump been convicted yet?

What is your source?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk