So, Trump is saying he has Covid.

gcomeau wrote:
Yeah he almost certainly has it. And he almost equally certainly was tested positive for it earlier than they are admitting given the timeline of symptom progression, how often he is supposed to be tested, and his doctors refusal to say when he last tested negative.

So he was running around contagious hoping he wouldn't develop symptoms and have to admit it while he was infecting everyone he came in contact with.

And now right wing media is all "how is it all these Republicans are suddenly getting sick????" like it isn't completely obvious and trying to suggest it's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Conjecture, mind reading, baseless assumptions, etc. I understand you are programmed to hate the President, but can't you step back and take a look at your post with honesty? Now imagine someone else wrote that about some other person than the President. Put yourself in the position of a random reader coming up to that post for the first time. Does it look normal to you?

orelsi wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yeah he almost certainly has it. And he almost equally certainly was tested positive for it earlier than they are admitting given the timeline of symptom progression, how often he is supposed to be tested, and his doctors refusal to say when he last tested negative.

So he was running around contagious hoping he wouldn't develop symptoms and have to admit it while he was infecting everyone he came in contact with.

And now right wing media is all "how is it all these Republicans are suddenly getting sick????" like it isn't completely obvious and trying to suggest it's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Conjecture, mind reading, baseless assumptions, etc. I understand you are programmed to hate the President, but can't you step back and take a look at your post with honesty? Now imagine someone else wrote that about some other person than the President. Put yourself in the position of a random reader coming up to that post for the first time. Does it look normal to you?

If that other person was a blustering narcissist that would never admit they are wrong, it's a high likelihood someone would.

And why do you use the word hate? Do you hate people you don't like? Most people despise Trump because he is a narcissistic grifter with a track record that in any other part of the democratic world would have barred him from holding office.

You do realize, that most of the world in equal parts look in horror or laugh at the sheer stupidity going on in the USA? It's no wonder people think Trump will do incredible stupid shit that anyone with an iota of common sense wouldn't do.

Orlesi.

Let's put it bluntly.

Trump stole from a charity that, along with other things, was raising money for childrens cancer.

I have a child with cancer (tumour is officially shrinking by the way)

Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women, including things like bursting into teenagers dressing rooms etc.

I have six daughters, and five grand daughters.

Yes, I think I can say I do hate Trump. For damn good reasons.

Any sane parent would.

However.


Conjecture, yes. Baseless assumptions, not in the slightest.

orelsi wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Yeah he almost certainly has it. And he almost equally certainly was tested positive for it earlier than they are admitting given the timeline of symptom progression, how often he is supposed to be tested, and his doctors refusal to say when he last tested negative.

So he was running around contagious hoping he wouldn't develop symptoms and have to admit it while he was infecting everyone he came in contact with.

And now right wing media is all "how is it all these Republicans are suddenly getting sick????" like it isn't completely obvious and trying to suggest it's some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Conjecture, mind reading, baseless assumptions, etc.

Barely.

That he is supposed to be tested daily is straight from the White House.

The standard timeline of progression of symptoms is well established.

His doctor's statement that he had started treatment before the White House claimed his test had come back positive is on tape. As is their refusal to say when the last time Trump tested negative was.

It doesn't take a whole lot to get from there to "Trump knew he had it before they told people". It would in fact take a bit of twisting and dodging around the facts to NOT reach that conclusion.

And once we've worked that part out, the rest just kind of inevitably falls into place. We know he was running around attending events the entire time right up to the point where they announced he was positive. No masks. No social distancing. Recklessly horrendously irresponsible in a pandemic even if he HADN'T tested positive... totally inexcusable and borderline criminal if he had and was starting to show symptoms (Which reports from his Bedminster fundraiser suggest he was.)

Speaking as a citizen in a developed country I don't think that I hate Trump. I reserve that emotion for people who have maliciously tried to harm me or mine.
I do however despise him, as he is a perfect example of all the character traits that annoy me. Untruthful (to the extreme), boastful, bullying, cruel, narcissist, bad mannered, ignorant, inconsiderate of others, sexist, loud and uncouth.
In a hypothetical alternative universe, if he had come to work for me, I would have counselled him repeatedly, then eventually fired him, as being not of good enough character to be in our team.

The thing is, you guys work yourself into a frenzy over imaginary issues. Here's what you do:

1. Either believe some media lie (all media is liberal these days and has a vested interest in shaping opinion against the "other side") or make stuff up yourself (like most posts in this topic)
2. Get pissed off about it (a thing that is not real except in your head)
3. Develop negative opinion of the President (based on a thing that is not real)
4. Share it online, preferably in a place where dissenting voices are labelled as trolls
5. Everyone agrees since it's what the cool kids call an echo chamber (which you deliberately sought to avoid opposing views or made by kicking out people that disagree)
6. Reinforcement of the initial negative opinion by universal agreement (things that are not real become set in stone in your mind since we are social animals)
7. ???
8. This subforum

This is neither honest attitude nor healthy in the long run.

What bothers me is that:
A: in order to read RFC consistently you need to be intelligent, a stupid person would not like his work, so I KNOW FOR A FACT you are not stupid. My only explanation is that you are naively being deceived.
B: Despite the above point every other post is filled with lies that can be proven wrong in 10 seconds, if you cared to check. So why don't you check? All the things you have against the President are distorted reality to serve one party's interests (not your interests) and are either outright lies or some made up stuff with "anonymous sources" and "insiders say", etc.

Daryl wrote:......, boastful, bullying, cruel, narcissist, bad mannered, ignorant, inconsiderate of others, sexist, loud and uncouth.

A couple of those are arguably not negative at all while the rest are simply not true. You have convinced yourself they are, but if you actually checked how the President acts in person with people that are non-partisan you will see a vastly different image. A person with the traits you describe would not reach the level that the President has both in his personal and in his public life. If what you are saying were true, people would not be arguing the point, it would be obvious.

Annachie wrote:Orlesi.

Let's put it bluntly.

Trump stole from a charity that, along with other things, was raising money for childrens cancer.

I have a child with cancer (tumour is officially shrinking by the way)

A blatant lie. I don't blame you for believing it, but have you actually checked it or did you just believe some random twitter post, because it aligned with your viewpoint? Check it right now. Do it.

I am sorry for your kid, cancer is a bitch, speaking from experience.

That said, what you wrote as an accusation toward the President is nevertheless simply not true.

Annachie wrote:
Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women, including things like bursting into teenagers dressing rooms etc.

I have six daughters, and five grand daughters.

He didn't. You are again distorting reality. We can have a long discussion about the interplay between men, women, power, money, etc., but the thing is there was never an assault. Be honest. There's a lot not to like about any person, including the President, but there's no need to make stuff up.

Annachie wrote:
Yes, I think I can say I do hate Trump. For damn good reasons.

Any sane parent would.

...and yet the two examples you cited, the examples that you base your hate on are not true. So why hate a person on imaginary grounds?

So, instead of trusting the media, who do you trust, orelsi?

What are your sources of information and how did you verify that they are reporting the truth?

The E wrote:So, instead of trusting the media, who do you trust, orelsi?

What are your sources of information and how did you verify that they are reporting the truth?

I don't need to verify, because I don't watch reporting, I watch live video or unedited footage without commentary. No reporting = no need for verification.

That's a tough one, but doable. Basically, put under the microscope anything that comes from a partisan news source whether left or right. Your best bet is to watch any live event or livestream without, and this is extremely important, WITHOUT commentary. Any form of a "journalist" is just a middle man that has a job to regurgitate and manipulate the events to the point of view of whoever is paying his salary. Actual reports of the news died in the 80s, we have had only partisan propaganda since then.

C-Span is the best. Yes, it takes a lot of time to actually watch hours long sessions, but speeches, for example, are short and easy. Watch the President speak on C-Span without editing or commentary and then watch your chosen news station covering it - edited and cut up to serve an agenda that is relentlessly hammered in your head by the talking heads. Do it once and be amazed.

Alternatively, you can consume as much viewpoints as possible (although it gets exhausting)and rely on your own judgement (but you have to be as objective as possible while doing it) and a good base of knowledge, the latter gets better with age - the more info you cram in your head, the easier it gets to use it and sift through the bullshit.

Read the bills and documents yourself. Everything is online these days and government docs are easily accessible. Don't read some journalist's tale on it, read the document.

tl;dr: I watch events live or unedited recordings instead of edited news footage. I also try to read the original documents instead of articles about them.

Any sort of editing = immediate manipulation. The best example is the "fine people" hoax. Never happened yet reported to this day as gospel. A simple cut through the middle of a statement omitting the part that changes the meaning. Even Biden mentioned it during the first debate despite knowing full well it's a lie, but also knowing that most people won't bother to check.

orelsi wrote:Any sort of editing = immediate manipulation. The best example is the "fine people" hoax. Never happened yet reported to this day as gospel. A simple cut through the middle of a statement omitting the part that changes the meaning. Even Biden mentioned it during the first debate despite knowing full well it's a lie, but also knowing that most people won't bother to check.

In that press conference you mention, Trump made the following statement:

Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Before we continue on, a question for orelsi: Is the statement 'Donald Trump called some of the participants of the Unite the Right rally "very fine people"' incorrect?
The question is not whether or not that statement omits context, because it does.
This is a "yes or no" question.

And thus does Oresi show us what is truly ment by Trump Derangement Syndrome. Denying things that are public knowledge, that were actually said and done by Trump, ignoring Trump's own words and actions.

Simply put.

Trump foundation donations are public record. Granted, it gave to thousands of charities.

Trump stole from it. People vs Donald Trump, NY 2018.

As for the sex offender:

https://youtu.be/FSC8Q-kR44o

That's him bragging about committing sexual assault. It's not the only example of course, but it's the clearest.

It really is that simple.


So.

Are you going to deny tax records, court filings, and actual video as "liberal media bull shit"?