America - The Official Thread

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You are making all sorts of unfounded assumptions.

No, I'm giving my ideal on how the election went, I never claimed that this is why Hillary won or Trump lost, that is for a University course in politics, and would take quite some time to actually figure out. There are the obvious reasons which I've maintained.

Why do you assume that "Hillary and co" (what is the "and co"?)

Co as in short of company, you seem more worried by the terminology than perplexed, it's not the hard. Since an election run is more than the person who is vying for POTUS but ultimately the name we are to remember for the next 4 years if elected, that is why I say Hillary and co or Trump and co.

expected to win "based on there being enough dems to put her over"? What does that even mean?

It was a comment based off your post, it's almost as if you're posting back to me without any idea that I'm actually responding to you, and not just out of the blue.

What on earth does "it was clear that what would win the election was demographics & non party voters" mean? What particular demographics are you talking about?

Well people that are non party voters, which are many, but also fulfill a demographic. Once again not hard, a blue collar voter not affiliated with any party living in the rust belt, a stay at home mother woman voter, an independent homosexual voter. These are all demographics of people not affiliated with a party but with some domestic investment due to said demographic they fall in.

I'm not talking about any particular one, since they all make a difference, my focus was mainly on the fact that they were not republican or democrat.

Comey was one of many factors that led to Clinton's defeat, but it's possible, though not quantifiable, that the Comey factor could have made the difference in the final outcome.

In regards to the entire investigation that plagued her campaign sure I agree he was a factor, I disagree that singling out the second investigation was the key point or even the idea it was that big of a factor. I've gone over this and we disagree wont run in circles with you on it.

How can you presume that it's "telling" that I find it "hard to say Sanders was cheated"? I've never commented on it one way or another.

I say it seems, and do so because of how you respond to the issue. You just posted "he was not really treated fairly", which reads as entertaining doubt or not seeing it as that big of a deal. That's just me.

Sanders didn't support Clinton because he was "playing on a team" - quite obviously he hasn't been much of a team player for most of his career as he has run as an independent for decades. I would say Sanders demonstrated that he had more concern for the American people than his own ego, because in spite of his treatment by the DNC he chose to support Clinton for the simple reason that he thought Trump would make a terrible President - a supposition that has already been borne out barely two months into Trump's term. I would say that was the "principle" that motivated Sanders.

It's not an ego thing, the fact that you despise Trump so badly and commend Sanders for trying to stop him, is an issue. I can dislike someone without giving up on my ideals. He didn't do that, picking a lesser of two evils rather than stepping up and saying why not try to defeat both is my issue. It all harks back to hard core dems and liberals saying well "anyone not running with or for Hillary, is only helping Trump"

I'm talking purely on what we know and not some animosity due to political ideology. Perhaps you can join me?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I would say Sanders demonstrated that he had more concern for the American people than his own ego, because in spite of his treatment by the DNC he chose to support Clinton for the simple reason that he thought Trump would make a terrible President - a supposition that has already been borne out barely two months into Trump's term.

While I do agree that Trump is making a rather bad president (and I am a republican), but your reason why Sanders supported Clinton is complete bull, and it reflected in the polls. On July 12th, the day that Sanders endorsed Clinton, Clinton had a 4.5% lead on Trump in the RCP Averages. For the rest of the month, Trump gained ground on Clinton, quickly. He eventually overtook her on July 25th by .2 points and led in the RCP Average for the next three days.

It wasn't that Trump would make a terrible president that was the deciding factor in Sanders endorsing Clinton. No, it was because Clinton NEEDED Sanders to solidify her base, an effort that, despite her win in the popular vote, ultimately failed.

 

[fatkrakr]

While I do agree that Trump is making a rather bad president (and I am a republican), but your reason why Sanders supported Clinton is complete bull, and it reflected in the polls. On July 12th, the day that Sanders endorsed Clinton, Clinton had a 4.5% lead on Trump in the RCP Averages. For the rest of the month, Trump gained ground on Clinton, quickly. He eventually overtook her on July 25th by .2 points and led in the RCP Average for the next three days.

It wasn't that Trump would make a terrible president that was the deciding factor in Sanders endorsing Clinton. No, it was because Clinton NEEDED Sanders to solidify her base, an effort that, despite her win in the popular vote, ultimately failed.

The Dems are in such denial on how and why they lost the election its almost funny. Almost.

 

[Imari]

And Pence's is to remove the rights of homosexual's and female's. Pick your poison my friend, neither are a good option, but at least with Trump it comes with a warning label.

Oh, I'm well aware that both of them are awful. I don't need a warning label to tell me that.

What scares me with Trump over Pence is that Trump is completely capable of throwing a tantrum and causing World War 3 for no other reason than his ego got hurt. Pence I would only expect to cause WW3 if it was in his own best interest.

It's why psychopaths are so scary, they don't necessarily react in sensible, logical ways. I can deal with arseholes who want to enslave everyone who doesn't have a white penis. I find it hard to deal with people who have a limited grasp of reality.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, because they are all the same. It is Fox that is unique. Fox viewership is also much smaller than the smallest of the big three.

Which still does not make it a marginal source, its broadcast world wide and is one of the major news outlets in the US, just because its not the largest doesn't make it marginal. A local broadcaster in a single city would be a marginal source, one that broadcasts the entire country and has a voice outside the US is far form marginal.And once again does the White House not exist? Arguably the most powerful office in the world is not marginal.

Tonight on the ABC Evening News they did a story about the new revelations into the Trump transition team being surveilled. They made a point of showing his tweets and his use of the words "wire tap" to discredit him. Again, this is a 70 year old man using the language he knows.

His age is an irreverence, he's the commander in chief and has access to arguably the best intelligence briefings in the world, an army of scriptwriter and press advisers. No excuse at all exists in that regard, if his tweets are inaccurate then that's a conscious choice he has made.

Nor is he being taken out of context, I've not seen one news agency suggest (as you did) that his phone was tapped in the manner of a '60s police thriller! Its the claim that he was the explicit target of direct surveillance on the order of Obama during the election campaign that is being addressed. He claims to have evidence of it, yet has not provided it, and no one has anything to support such a claim.

 

[Dotini]

His age is an irreverence

Its the claim that he was the explicit target of direct surveillance on the order of Obama during the election campaign that is being addressed. He claims to have evidence of it, yet has not provided it, and no one has anything to support such a claim.

Did he explicitly claim he was the explicit target? His general claim to have been spied upon and recorded seems generally correct, even if it was only incidental and not explicitly the centerpiece of the spying operation(s).

Was his evidence that he heard the recorded conversations played back to him for his benefit and amusement?

When the House Intelligence Committee Chairman goes public - as he has - that the Trump operation was spied upon and the names of his people and that of Trump himself caught up in the recording was illegally released, then you should probably take it to the bank that the investigation is proceeding to the truth, instead of doubling down on your own dubious claims.

 

[Sanji Himura]

His age is an irreverence, he's the commander in chief and has access to arguably the best intelligence briefings in the world, an army of scriptwriter and press advisers. No excuse at all exists in that regard, if his tweets are inaccurate then that's a conscious choice he has made.

Actually, yes, age is relevant in verbiage. He is America's oldest elected President at the time that he took the Oath of Office. He was 70 when he took the oath. The previous record holder was only 69, and that was Ronald Reagan.

Interestingly enough, had Hillary won the election, she would have been the second oldest by a few months.

 

[Scaff]

Did he explicitly claim he was the explicit target?

Yes.

His words:

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

Note the use of the word 'My', he is quite clearly stating that he was the target

His general claim to have been spied upon and recorded seems generally correct, even if it was only incidental and not explicitly the centerpiece of the spying operation(s).

No it wasn't. His specific claim was that he was the target and that he was targeted on Obama orders and that it was during the campaign.

When the House Intelligence Committee Chairman goes public - as he has - that the Trump operation was spied upon and the names of his people and that of Trump himself caught up in the recording was illegally released, then you should probably take it to the bank that the investigation is proceeding to the truth, instead of doubling down on your own dubious claims.

My dubious claims?

Trumps own words, your claims are the ones that are currently at odds with the claim he made.

Actually, yes, age is relevant in verbiage. He is America's oldest elected President at the time that he took the Oath of Office. He was 70 when he took the oath. The previous record holder was only 69, and that was Ronald Reagan.

Interestingly enough, had Hillary won the election, she would have been the second oldest by a few months.

Its not relevant as no one has taken it to mean that someone snuck into the building an attached a recording device to the phone line in the manner of a 60's spy movie.

The claims from him were quite clear, regardless of 'verbiage'.

• That he was the direct target (hence the use of the word 'My')
• That it was under the direction of Obama
• That it was during the election campaign

I've not seen a single piece of evidence to support these claims yet, if you have it please feel free to share it (and you will not none of that has a thing to do with how anyone want to interpret the word wiretap).

 

[Sanji Himura]

Its not relevant as no one has taken it to mean that someone snuck into the building an attached a recording device to the phone line in the manner of a 60's spy movie.

Were you not paying attention to the PRISM thread or, more appropriately, the Vault 7 leaks? The government doesn't necessarily need to physically enter the building to conduct surveillance on any given subject/suspect. The intelligence community can now use zero-day exploits to safely conduct sweeps of any target that they wish in the comfort of their underwear (extreme example) and not actually have to be on scene. The taps are already there.

Besides, you are using a double standard as you are most certainly implying that he can't use a more commonly accepted term, in this case wiretapping, to imply that surveillance was done on his campaign.

The claims from him were quite clear, regardless of 'verbiage'.

• That he was the direct target (hence the use of the word 'My')
• That it was under the direction of Obama
• That it was during the election campaign

I've not seen a single piece of evidence to support these claims yet, if you have it please feel free to share it (and you will not none of that has a thing to do with how anyone want to interpret the word wiretap).

1. No, he didn't state that he was the direct target, just that Trump Tower was. His use of my in the quote was to signify ownership of the building. Most of his campaign and the resulting transition team's business was conducted from Trump Tower in New York.

2. It was and it isn't at the same time. Obama, as the president, didn't necessarily order that Trump Tower be put under surveillance, but once the powers that be discovered that it was, Obama, the de facto leader of the Democrat party, didn't lift a finger to stop it.*

3. We don't know when it happened, and quite frankly neither does Trump, but a reasonable indication of when Trump DID found out that he was under surveillance was when he started to hold Presidential Transition Team meetings at his Bedminster, NJ golf course before transferring back to Trump Tower in New York.

*In case you don't get that, I have a running gag that the Dallas Cowboys (my local NFL team) will never be any good unless Jerry Jones the owner fires Jerry Jones the GM (as the two are one in the same).

 

[BobK]

He is America's oldest elected President at the time that he took the Oath of Office. He was 70 when he took the oath. The previous record holder was only 69, and that was Ronald Reagan.

Interestingly enough, had Hillary won the election, she would have been the second oldest by a few months.

Interesting indeed. Almost the exact opposite of the 1960 election, in which Kennedy became the youngest President. Had his opponent won, then Nixon would have been the youngest elected President.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Interesting indeed. Almost the exact opposite of the 1960 election, in which Kennedy became the youngest President. Had his opponent won, then Nixon would have been the youngest elected President.

Actually, no. Teddy Roosevelt beat him by a year. Teddy was 42 and Kennedy was 43. Everyone thinks that Kennedy was the youngest because of 'Camelot' and all of that jazz.

EDIT: It should be noted that Teddy assumed office at 42, but it should count all the same.

 

[BobK]

Actually, no. Teddy Roosevelt beat him by a year. Teddy was 42 and Kennedy was 43. Everyone thinks that Kennedy was the youngest because of 'Camelot' and all of that jazz.

EDIT: It should be noted that Teddy assumed office at 42, but it should count all the same.

You're right. JFK was the youngest elected President. Nixon would have been older than TR even after TR was elected.

 

[DK]

The House of Representatives' vote on the Republicare bill has been pushed back, it was originally meant to be today but there's a significant number of opponents within the GOP.

 

[Northstar]

Considering how long it took to get the ACA through I'm not expecting this to come to a conclusion any time soon.

 

[Dotini]

A "smoking gun" to be revealed, asks famed reporter James Rosen.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...stration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html

Edit:
Superhero Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, no friend of Trump, says Obama officials could be guilty of criminal charges for unmasking Trump team.

 

[Scaff]

Were you not paying attention to the PRISM thread or, more appropriately, the Vault 7 leaks? The government doesn't necessarily need to physically enter the building to conduct surveillance on any given subject/suspect. The intelligence community can now use zero-day exploits to safely conduct sweeps of any target that they wish in the comfort of their underwear (extreme example) and not actually have to be on scene. The taps are already there.

Besides, you are using a double standard as you are most certainly implying that he can't use a more commonly accepted term, in this case wiretapping, to imply that surveillance was done on his campaign.

Given that I've said no such thing, or applied any double standard I have literally no idea what you are going on about.

I've not questioned the form the claimed surveillance may have taken, and should you continue to try and claim I have then you best be quoting me doing so.

1. No, he didn't state that he was the direct target, just that Trump Tower was. His use of my in the quote was to signify ownership of the building. Most of his campaign and the resulting transition team's business was conducted from Trump Tower in New York.

Yes he did, he said "....Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower....".

His 'wires' in Trump Towers.

If he meant the wider building or campaign why not say say so?

However even if he did mean to say be indicating the wider campaign, etc. it makes no difference, as that would be direct surveillance, of which no evidence at all exists.

2. It was and it isn't at the same time. Obama, as the president, didn't necessarily order that Trump Tower be put under surveillance, but once the powers that be discovered that it was, Obama, the de facto leader of the Democrat party, didn't lift a finger to stop it.

And yet Trump claims he did

"....Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory...."

'Had my "wires tapped", as in the past tense and '...just before the victory...'; it quite clearly states both time frame and under the direct instruction of Obama.

3. We don't know when it happened, and quite frankly neither does Trump, but a reasonable indication of when Trump DID found out that he was under surveillance was when he started to hold Presidential Transition Team meetings at his Bedminster, NJ golf course before transferring back to Trump Tower in New York.

No evidence exists that anything occurred either directly targeting Trump or the Trump campaign, or that anything occurred before Trumps victory.

Now you say that Trump doesn't know, yet his words in the tweet call you a liar "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory"; he also claimed to have evidence to support this, he's just refused to provide it.

 

[Dotini]

Roll Over Beethoven And Tell Tchaikovsky The News.

RIP Chuck Berry, 1927-2017

 

[Sanji Himura]

Given that I've said no such thing, or applied any double standard I have literally no idea what you are going on about.

I've not questioned the form the claimed surveillance may have taken, and should you continue to try and claim I have then you best be quoting me doing so.

Are you familiar with the term in trademark law called Generic trademark? While a word or phrase may have meant a specific thing, for example, wiretapping means putting recording devices on a telephone line, it may have transformed in common language over time, for example, wiretapping may simply mean surveillance in the common tongue.

While strictly speaking, you are correct that no bugs are actually present in Trump Tower, but to paraphrase Indio from 'For A Few Dollars More', the lack of a bug doesn't always signify that there was active surveillance going on.

Yes he did, he said "....Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower....".

His 'wires' in Trump Towers.

If he meant the wider building or campaign why not say say so?

However even if he did mean to say be indicating the wider campaign, etc. it makes no difference, as that would be direct surveillance, of which no evidence at all exists.

Twitter's 140 character limit, that's why. I plugged in the full quote that you provided to me as a tweet, and it comes out to 133 characters.

And yet Trump claims he did

"....Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory...."

'Had my "wires tapped", as in the past tense and '...just before the victory...'; it quite clearly states both time frame and under the direct instruction of Obama.

Might be worth it to study how early Presidential Transitions actually start. Mitt Romney, even though he lost the 2012 election, had a team set up back in June, and Obama did the same when he was nominated in the 2008 election. The transition process actually starts at the convention for the smooth transition of power.

No evidence exists that anything occurred either directly targeting Trump or the Trump campaign, or that anything occurred before Trumps victory.

Now you say that Trump doesn't know, yet his words in the tweet call you a liar "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory"; he also claimed to have evidence to support this, he's just refused to provide it.

Yet I don't see you calling for an special counsel to investigate the allegations. Maybe it is because you are ready to dismiss them out of hand as a lunatic ranting on twitter. At least I was willing to at least open my eyes and at least did some investigating before coming to some form of conclusion.

The whole point to what I said was that I don't know when the surveillance started and neither does Trump. AT BEST, all he knows is that he was under surveillance before the election, and quite possibly some time afterword, judging from the fact that he played hopscotch on where he met potential cabinet picks during the transition.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Which still does not make it a marginal source, its broadcast world wide and is one of the major news outlets in the US, just because its not the largest doesn't make it marginal. A local broadcaster in a single city would be a marginal source, one that broadcasts the entire country and has a voice outside the US is far form marginal.And once again does the White House not exist? Arguably the most powerful office in the world is not marginal.

It does not matter that Fox News is available around the world. It does not matter that you might watch Fox News.

Here in the US over the air broadcast TV is free. We don't pay a penny(pence) for it like you guys in the UK.

The vast majority of people here get their news from the free. major networks. The highest rated show on Fox has less than 17% of the viewers of the major network's news.

You seem as hung up on the word "marginal", as you are on the word "wiretap".

I guy calls 911(999), "help!" he says, "a car just lost control going around a curve, ran over my wife and hit a tree!"
Minutes later the emergency services arrive. They notice the injured woman on the ground and an SUV up against a tree. They begin to talk amongst themselves. The man screams "HEY! aren't you going to do anything?" A paramedic looks and the man and says "You said it was a 'car'."

 

[Imari]

Maybe it is because you are ready to dismiss them out of hand as a lunatic ranting on twitter.

Given the general accuracy of what Trump tweets, that wouldn't be an unreasonable response to any given Trump tweet. Specific examples may hold greater worth, but in general treating what comes out of that account as lunatic ranting is probably a sound strategy.

This isn't necessarily a reflection on his ability as a president, but the things on that twitter account are best said with a tin foil hat perched at a jaunty angle on one's barnet.

It does not matter that Fox News is available around the world. It does not matter that you might watch Fox News.

Here in the US over the air broadcast TV is free. We don't pay a penny(pence) for it like you guys in the UK.

The vast majority of people here get their news from the free. major networks. The highest rated show on Fox has less than 17% of the viewers of the major network's news.

You can pick another word to describe it if you like, but Fox News is not a marginal source. It's a large news corporation with a significant viewership within both the US and the world.

It might be described as a second tier news network in the states, or a less popular one. But calling it marginal is straight up misrepresentation, and it's hard to continue a rational conversation when someone insists on labeling something so incorrectly.

 

[Scaff]

Are you familiar with the term in trademark law called Generic trademark? While a word or phrase may have meant a specific thing, for example, wiretapping means putting recording devices on a telephone line, it may have transformed in common language over time, for example, wiretapping may simply mean surveillance in the common tongue.

Either quote me arguing that we can dismiss the entire Trump tweet based on the use of the term wiretap or drop it.

I have not disputed that it can be used as a wider term for surveillance once, so to continue to suggest that I have is to be blunt a lie.

While strictly speaking, you are correct that no bugs are actually present in Trump Tower, but to paraphrase Indio from 'For A Few Dollars More', the lack of a bug doesn't always signify that there was active surveillance going on.

Except I have never said any such thing at all, you are now just making things up, I strongly suggest that you stop doing so, and stop right now.

Twitter's 140 character limit, that's why. I plugged in the full quote that you provided to me as a tweet, and it comes out to 133 characters.

Now aside from the fact that we know Trump is aware of how to use 'continuation' in tweets you can actually word it to apply to a wider audience with less words.

Not that (as I have already said and you have ignored) it matters, as even if its applied wider it would still be direct surveillance, something no evidence has been shown happened.

Might be worth it to study how early Presidential Transitions actually start. Mitt Romney, even though he lost the 2012 election, had a team set up back in June, and Obama did the same when he was nominated in the 2008 election. The transition process actually starts at the convention for the smooth transition of power.

So when Trump said Victory he actually means Transition!

Then why not use the word transition?

Yet I don't see you calling for an special counsel to investigate the allegations. Maybe it is because you are ready to dismiss them out of hand as a lunatic ranting on twitter. At least I was willing to at least open my eyes and at least did some investigating before coming to some form of conclusion.

You are once again reading what you want into something rather than actually reading what has been written, to the point that you are making up what you want me to have said.

I have been at great pains to state that this is based on no evidence of the specific claims Trump made, should that evidence be produced and be credible I am most certainly open to re-evaluating my position.

The whole point to what I said was that I don't know when the surveillance started and neither does Trump. AT BEST, all he knows is that he was under surveillance before the election, and quite possibly some time afterword, judging from the fact that he played hopscotch on where he met potential cabinet picks during the transition.

So he doesn't know when it started, but he does?

You are aware that you contradict yourself in the space of two sentences, nor do you (despite how you keep posting) speak for Trump. His words on the timing were quite clear, he claims to have evidence to support his claim but will not release it.

It does not matter that Fox News is available around the world. It does not matter that you might watch Fox News.

Here in the US over the air broadcast TV is free. We don't pay a penny(pence) for it like you guys in the UK.

Yes it does matter if you are claiming that they are a marginal source of information.

Now Fox News seems to currently be the highest rated in terms of audience figures of the cable networks:

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2016...nnel-is-cable-tvs-most-watched-network/315009

Which would certainly not make them marginal in that arena.

You then refer to terrestrial broadcasts and a comparison to the UK, however the key difference that I am aware of is that the UK has a number of terrestrial stations that cover the entire country, the US does not.

As such you can't lump all terrestrial US news broadcasts into one big pot and compare it to Fox (or any other cable network news) and use it as an argument to say the cable players are now marginal. These terrestrial broadcasters do not all speak with a single common voice, which is what would be required for that comparison to hold true.

Its also an important consideration that for anything beyond regional news a large number of these terrestrial stations have to use the larger (mainly cable) broadcasters to provide that news. As such its not much of a surprise to find that Fox both owns a number of regional terrestrial broadcasters and has a much bigger list of them as affiliates.

So just to be clear a marginal source of information is one that:

• Is currently the cable news network with the largest audience in the US
• Owns 17 regional terrestrial stations in the US
• Is affiliated with over 185 regional terrestrial stations in the US
• Is broadcast in over 40 countries worldwide.

This is what marginal reach apparently looks like:

Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...gs-top-all-cable-networks-for-first-time.html
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/2016...nnel-is-cable-tvs-most-watched-network/315009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fox_television_affiliates_(table)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#/media/File:Fox_News_World_Providers_Map.svg

You seem as hung up on the word "marginal", as you are on the word "wiretap".

I'm not hung up on the word wiretap (and if you are joining Sanji Himura on that you best be able to quote me doing so), however you don't get to redefine marginal to your own standards.

1. 1.
   relating to or at the edge or margin.
   "marginal notes"
2. 2.
   minor and not important; not central.
   "it seems likely to make only a marginal difference"
   synonyms: slight, small, tiny, minute, low, minor, insignificant, minimal, negligible
   "the difference is marginal"

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+marginal&*

As it would make you seem to be referring to Fox News and the White House (which I note you have once again ignored) as "slight, small, tiny, minute, low, minor, insignificant, minimal and/or negligible".

I guy calls 911(999), "help!" he says, "a car just lost control going around a curve, ran over my wife and hit a tree!"
Minutes later the emergency services arrive. They notice the injured woman on the ground and an SUV up against a tree. They begin to talk amongst themselves. The man screams "HEY! aren't you going to do anything?" A paramedic looks and the man and says "You said it was a 'car'."

No it's the difference between calling an ambulance and saying a car has hit a tree and a person but the injuries are slight (a small RTA) and when they turn up its actually a fifty car pile-up on the motorway with multiple serious casualties and deaths.

 

[fatkrakr]

it's hard to continue a rational conversation when someone insists on labeling something so incorrectly.

you are now just making things up, I strongly suggest that you stop doing so, and stop right now.

Wow just Wow.

 

[Scaff]

Wow just Wow.

Wow what?

If you also believe I have dismissed the tweet based on a narrow definition of the term wiretap then quote me.

 

[fatkrakr]

Wow what?

If you also believe I have dismissed the tweet based on a narrow definition of the term wiretap then quote me.

fixed

 

[Famine]

Here in the US over the air broadcast TV is free. We don't pay a penny(pence) for it like you guys in the UK.

Watching television through an aerial in the UK costs £145.50 a year (rising to £147 a year from March). Watching cable or satellite costs £145.50 a year and then your subscription fee.

 

[Scaff]

fixed

Not really.

OK, actually not at all.

If you (or any other member) is going to claim I have dismissed Trumps tweet based on how surveillance was carried out or what form it may have taken (which is what both of the edits of your post were citing my replies to) then please quote me doing so.

Members don't get to make factual claims about someone without being able to support it, and playing the man rather than the ball doesn't replace that need.

What I have consistently said is that no evidence has been presented for his claims that direct surveillance was carried out, on Obama's orders before his victory.

Now if you have evidence to show that it was how about you provide that rather than engaging in personal digs or resorting to made-up claims of me disputing the nature or form of the claimed surveillance.

 

[fatkrakr]

Point being you too lecturing members on doing such.

 

[Scaff]

Point being you too lecturing members on doing such.

Don't even bother quoting me when making a dig, it gets better.

I also have no idea what on earth you are now trying to say?

So lets keep it simple for you, stop with the personal digs and the off-topic noise, as continuing in the manner you are will see you taking a holiday from GTP.

 

[Imari]

Wow just Wow.

Huh? So you're totally OK with labelling Fox as a marginal news source, ie. one which is minor or not important?

Seriously, we can debate about what words are used but if that's the actual meaning intended, I don't see how a conversation can be had. That's just objectively false.

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/12/cnn-fox-news-msnbc-nbc-ratings-2016-winners-losers-1201762864/

If people can't even be honest and agree on basic facts beforehand, then there's no point talking opinions and interpretation. I'm pretty sure that if a news network is labelled as one of the "Big Three" of cable news, they're not marginal. Attempting to dismiss them and rule them out of the conversation as irrelevant is straight up dishonest.

If someone can't admit that Fox is a pretty large news network with a non-trivial impact on viewers in the US, then why talk to that person? They would be so out of touch with reality that you might as well be talking to a peanut butter sandwich.

There's an interesting discussion to be had about Fox and it's role in the dissemination of information, but it starts with recognising that they are, in fact, not a shoestring operation with no reach at all.

And then we have you, who isn't actually trying to have a conversation at all but have gone back to your usual tactics of trolling people. Good one. Keep it up. The world is a better place for having you in it.

 

[Dotini]

Giant patches of this Official America Thread have devolved into the terms "me" and "you" dominating the conversation, and virtually nothing official about America. Too long, didn't read. 👎