Quboid wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 15:21:Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 09:30:Beamer wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 06:46:Sadly, DangerDog is not unique. In fact, he represents significant portion of the population. It is the very definition of how/why Trump was elected.
This thread is great:
1) DangerDog says "Trump never claimed it was the largest inauguration. The media made the battle!"
2) It's proven Trump made the size comment
3) DangerDog says "Well, it's about when the photo was taken, so Trump was right!"
It shows That DangerDog doesn't bother looking into anything before getting all angry at someone else over it, meaning he blames the media instead of Trump, and it means he'll do anything to defend Trump.
Basically, why are we talking to him when it's been proven here he's ignorant, unwilling to use Google before committing to an opinion, and unwilling to change his poorly informed opinion after someone shows him actual video disputing his memory? This isn't even about opinions, which people here argue often. He's arguing fact in the face of video evidence. If someone can't even agree on widely-proven fact, why engage?
Yes, that's why I'm curious. I'm not going to change his mind or even get honest answers, but how he avoids reality is interesting. His political beliefs are a house of cards, he daren't risk disturbing a single one in case the whole lot falls down.
Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 09:30:Beamer wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 06:46:Sadly, DangerDog is not unique. In fact, he represents significant portion of the population. It is the very definition of how/why Trump was elected.
This thread is great:
1) DangerDog says "Trump never claimed it was the largest inauguration. The media made the battle!"
2) It's proven Trump made the size comment
3) DangerDog says "Well, it's about when the photo was taken, so Trump was right!"
It shows That DangerDog doesn't bother looking into anything before getting all angry at someone else over it, meaning he blames the media instead of Trump, and it means he'll do anything to defend Trump.
Basically, why are we talking to him when it's been proven here he's ignorant, unwilling to use Google before committing to an opinion, and unwilling to change his poorly informed opinion after someone shows him actual video disputing his memory? This isn't even about opinions, which people here argue often. He's arguing fact in the face of video evidence. If someone can't even agree on widely-proven fact, why engage?
Red886 wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 05:04:RedEye9 wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:42:
Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thingThe tRump group of supporters consumed the highest volume of junk news and spread more junk news sources, than all the other groups put together. This pattern is repeated on
most of the mainstream media is fake news. that of course also includes gov media like the BBC.
and the audacity to call news that Trump's supporters read as junk news, when British media and mainstream american media is full of crap as well? what a joke. Some arbiter of truths these anti-Trump publications are
Beamer wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 06:46:Sadly, DangerDog is not unique. In fact, he represents significant portion of the population. It is the very definition of how/why Trump was elected.
This thread is great:
1) DangerDog says "Trump never claimed it was the largest inauguration. The media made the battle!"
2) It's proven Trump made the size comment
3) DangerDog says "Well, it's about when the photo was taken, so Trump was right!"
It shows That DangerDog doesn't bother looking into anything before getting all angry at someone else over it, meaning he blames the media instead of Trump, and it means he'll do anything to defend Trump.
Basically, why are we talking to him when it's been proven here he's ignorant, unwilling to use Google before committing to an opinion, and unwilling to change his poorly informed opinion after someone shows him actual video disputing his memory? This isn't even about opinions, which people here argue often. He's arguing fact in the face of video evidence. If someone can't even agree on widely-proven fact, why engage?
Basically, why are we talking to him when it's been proven here he's ignorant, unwilling to use Google before committing to an opinion, and unwilling to change his poorly informed opinion after someone shows him actual video disputing his memory? This isn't even about opinions, which people here argue often. He's arguing fact in the face of video evidence. If someone can't even agree on widely-proven fact, why engage?
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 13:32:
The orange twitter troll also has such a good understanding of the FBI he thinks they failed on doing anything about the Florida school shooter because they were chasing the fake Russian leads, which have now been proven to be true.
But no collusion.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Paul Joseph Goebbels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpjLhM1BRW8
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:42:
Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thingThe tRump group of supporters consumed the highest volume of junk news and spread more junk news sources, than all the other groups put together. This pattern is repeated on
Flatline wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 02:34:DangerDog wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 02:22:
Well, I would say you're guilty of falling for the fake news story about it being a "low turn out" crowd. I don't recall the "largest crowd ever" statement by Trump. It seems the media were the ones who wanted to nit-pick over crowd sizes. obsessing over it much like you are now.
Dude it took me like... 5 minutes to find the ABC interview where Trump said out of his own mouth "We had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches."
Which even if you include online and TV? Not so much.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/824501387861987329/video/1
And as for your "highly journalistic" source of "zero hedge" who spends multiple pages talking about forced perspective, I can show you a timelapse of the entire day from PBS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
I mean, even Spicer admits that he regrets that whopper.
DangerDog wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 02:22:
Well, I would say you're guilty of falling for the fake news story about it being a "low turn out" crowd. I don't recall the "largest crowd ever" statement by Trump. It seems the media were the ones who wanted to nit-pick over crowd sizes. obsessing over it much like you are now.
Quboid wrote on Feb 19, 2018, 00:49:
That's why this is so weird - this was no "gotcha", Trump brought this entirely on himself. It was completely pointless of Trump to make that claim. He drew attention to the attendance (Spicer pretended it was about people watching after the fact) and then rather than point to the mitigating reasons, he made an incorrect statement about the attendance that make those reasons irrelevant. DC didn't like him? His statement was still obviously wrong. The weather was bad? His statement was still obviously wrong.
And yet, you fell for it. That was also completely pointless. You parroted an obviously incorrect statement and in your paranoia, you blamed the people who pointed out that the President made an obviously incorrect statement - as if that's not something the media should pick up on. I can't imagine you deliberately tried to mislead anyone else because it was so weak but then what was the point? As I said before, it looks like deep down, you know you've fallen for the most obvious con in history and rather than accept that and learn from it, you cling on to anything to maintain the illusion.
Claiming to not care about the media after inadvertently admitting you were wrong fits that too.
Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 23:21:DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:33:Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 17:45:
I don't care about the numbers, or the inauguration at all. I'm intrigued by what leads someone to believe a politician - any politician - over clear, objective reality.
That makes two of us, as for the media lol I don't give two shits about what the "media" has to say regarding Trump, or really anything.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't have complained about it in the first place. So you agree that it wasn't well attended? That looks like an excuse for poor attendance, so do you agree that the media was right to call out Trump's false claim?
DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:33:Quboid wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 17:45:
I don't care about the numbers, or the inauguration at all. I'm intrigued by what leads someone to believe a politician - any politician - over clear, objective reality.
That makes two of us, as for the media lol I don't give two shits about what the "media" has to say regarding Trump, or really anything.
RedEye9 wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 20:42:
Fake news sharing in US is a rightwing thingThe tRump group of supporters consumed the highest volume of junk news and spread more junk news sources, than all the other groups put together. This pattern is repeated on
jdreyer wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 19:37:DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:59:The mother was a nurse, and the father former military intelligence analyst. That's a pretty good combination to detect his behavior, but they had no clue.HorrorScope wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:46:DangerDog wrote on Feb 18, 2018, 15:30:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pressure-on-fbi-mounts-after-failure-to-pursue-tip-on-florida-suspect/
FBI's new slogan. If you see something, say something so we can do nothing.
The other slogan could have been... "See something, say something and we'll detain people without cause or due process, trust us."
The family he was living with say they had no idea he was so unstable, maybe things could have turned out differently if they were at least made aware of the situation.