Unhinged........and getting worse
- Thread starter BuilderBob6
- Start date
I don’t take what any president says at face value. I didn’t with Bush, I didn’t with Obama. Why would I start with Trump?
I have very few opinions about Trump. Your post reads like an unhinged person who has never had an actual conversation with real life people about politics. The world existed before Donald Trump became president, and for a lot of people, nothing changed when he became president, other than some of our neighbors have seemingly lost their minds.
Look at all of the assumptions you made about me without knowing a single thing about me in this post. It's full of statements that are blatant falsehoods and do not accurately depict me as a human. Why? Are you trying to "win an argument"? I'm not even arguing with you, I just said I don't like Aaron Rupar. That's it. That's pretty much the only point I've made in this entire thread, other than saying I don't take what politicians say at face value.
You then explain to me: how I felt four years ago (incorrect), how I will feel after Joe Biden gets elected (incorrect), and put me in a group of people that I do not belong to and did not vote with (incorrect).
Yes, as you said in the title of this post...unhinged.
Last edited:
Lol. Go back and read your first sentence again.
I’ll summarize what you said: You don’t take anything a president says at face value (which is really stupid, FYI), you don’t really have an opinion of Trump ( riiiiiiight) but Aaron Rupar is garbage because he posts videos of Trump speaking.
So which way is it, Eric? Either you don’t take anything trump says at face value and don’t have an opinion of him, or the opposite because it bothers you when someone posts clips of him speaking. Couldn’t you at least try a smidge harder at concealing the hypocrisy?
My issue with Aaron Rupar has nothing to do with him posting videos of Donald Trump.
Again, I know this is hard for people to understand, but it is possible for people to be somewhat apathetic about the current president of the United States. Again, I didn't vote for him in 2016 and do not plan to vote for him in 2020, but I also don't let him consume every ounce of my being when complex political issues arise.
And you prove that you aren’t concerned about it by *checks notes * posting on a random message board about it. Got it.
I am concerned about Aaron Rupar. Which is why I posted about it. I am not concerned with Donald Trump, which is why I did not bring him up.
At least he kept us out of war with Iran . Bolton on the other hand was for war
Tbh, i think you should really worry more about Trump (or whoever ends up being president) than a guy who just tweets videos of people saying dumb things.
If it makes you feel better, I had this opinion in 2016, but I do not share it anymore. I do appreciate your concern for my well-being, sincerely.
Just curious what is the issue with Rupar ... acknowledging he is a far left dude (just like i would assume anybody working for Breitbart is going to be a far right dude).
I’m honesty curious.
I don't like Bolton and this book did not change my opinion of him, but it was certainly worrisome that Kelly, Pence, and Bolton were so hard at work keeping Trump from doing crazy things. By the way, the book is a bit of a slough but worth reading.
Rupar I believe to be especially awful, but most journalists now that report with an activist bent are doing far more damage to the country and the national conversation than either political party, I believe. I quite liked Vox until 2014 or 2015 - I believe our country's institutions can hold, even if people that are in them are incompetent, insufferable, or moronic blowhards. However, our country can not function with only activists for journalists.
The level of polarization in this country certainly is the result of many things - but I believe activism in journalism to be the biggest factor, and the one that is most easily controlled or regulated. This goes for both sides, like you said (I'm no fan of Breitbart, either, and give you props for realizing that Vox is a pretty good polar opposite to it).
Does this apply to Fox News as well since they’ve caused the most damage in this country?
It isn't Fox opinion hosts (Tucker, Laura, Hannity) or MSNBC opinion hosts (Maddow, O'Donnell, Hayes),that are doing damage to the country. We should embrace freedom of speech and allow opinion shows on both sides of the aisle. None of these opinion hosts pretend to be something they aren't. MSNBC opinion hosts proudly embrace the liberal/progressive agenda, Fox opinion hosts proudly embrace their conservative agenda (or more libertarian in Tucker's case)
The great damage to the country is being done by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN. They claim to be straight news anchors, but in all cases their news anchors are liberal activists. That is a danger to the country when you can't trust news divisions of major networks to be neutral in their reporting. Where does the average American go to get straight tv news?
Its gotten so bad that Fox's Chris Wallace is the only one a majority would agree is an unbiased journalist.
Lmaoooo folks like Tucker and Hannity and Ingraham have done no damage? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you BoilerBF, an example of the damage done by those very people. Jesus.
“Caused the most damage in this country?” Because they’re a network not pushing the liberal, Trump hating agenda? How’s that damaging?
Never mind, you’re a mEdIa MaTtErs idiot which means you must trash everything Fox News around the clock because opinion hosts on the network refuse to conform to the leftist groupthink. Not sure why I even asked.
No I don't think Rachel Maddow does damage, and I don't think Tucker Carlson has done damage. The country was built on free speech. I don't have a problem with liberals or conservatives hosting opinion shows. I think opposing opinions/views are good.
The problem comes when news journalists try to pretend they are neutral hard news anchors....and instead you get an opinion show. Thats dangerous for the country if you can't trust news anchors.
They are obsessed with Fox News because they’re the last network that doesn’t think like them. Complete conformity is the goal.
I'll go against two people I usually agree with (@BoilerBF and @atlboiIer2156) and say that I do believe it was Fox News that started this - at least for me. In the early to mid-2000s, I found their news horrifically biased and terrible. I remember in 2008 being appalled when I saw something that said "Osama or Obama?" and that I felt was racist, terrible trash.
I was a huge Jon Stewart guy during those years and while he leans left to far left, I thought he gave it back to the Democrats and the left from time to time. Trevor Noah doesn't. I haven't watched The Daily Show since Stewart left.
I actually do think NOW Fox does a better job than a bunch of places of giving news that I believe to be more fair - a truly bizarre world I live in, considering 10 years ago I hated them with the passion of 1,000 suns. As BoilerBF pointed out above, CBS, NBC and CNN are the ones that are worst at this. And that isn't a high bar here - CNN, CBS, NBC are trash and not worth a second of my time.
Matt Taibbi (gonzo journalist from Rolling Stone and my GUY!) gave a great talk like two weeks ago at Penn State about how the media has lost their mind - he wrote a book called "Hate, Inc." which is REALLY good.
I was a huge Jon Stewart guy during those years and while he leans left to far left, I thought he gave it back to the Democrats and the left from time to time. Trevor Noah doesn't. I haven't watched The Daily Show since Stewart left.
I actually do think NOW Fox does a better job than a bunch of places of giving news that I believe to be more fair - a truly bizarre world I live in, considering 10 years ago I hated them with the passion of 1,000 suns. As BoilerBF pointed out above, CBS, NBC and CNN are the ones that are worst at this. And that isn't a high bar here - CNN, CBS, NBC are trash and not worth a second of my time.
Matt Taibbi (gonzo journalist from Rolling Stone and my GUY!) gave a great talk like two weeks ago at Penn State about how the media has lost their mind - he wrote a book called "Hate, Inc." which is REALLY good.
Love, love, love Taibbi. Haven’t read that book yet but it’s on my list.
Wish I had more to say about your comments above but I was not a Fox News consumer in the mid-early 2000’s. That was college for me and life was too busy to sit down and consume much television.
Even now at 34 with a wife who kills it in her career and I’m equally as busy running a small business, I catch Tucker Carlson maybe once every week or so. He asks questions and is curious and I appreciate that. Talk radio/podcasts/books fit into my lifestyle much better than sitting and watching television.
I do believe Fox News is much more of an obsession with those on the left than those on the right. Kind of like Trump.
Have people opened their windows in major cities in the United States recently? People aren't out there losing their frickin' minds because of politicians. And contrary to popular belief, or what GBI will tell you, they aren't out there because of the police, either.
They are out there because of the media and the education system.
Our institutions can and will hold. We can not start changing them - anyone that talks about it is an absolute non-starter for me. The institutions and the checks and balances MUST hold.
*enter your own expletive here
They are out there because of the media and the education system.
Our institutions can and will hold. We can not start changing them - anyone that talks about it is an absolute non-starter for me. The institutions and the checks and balances MUST hold.
*enter your own expletive here
Last edited:
IMO the problem is the stories the MSM are ignoring
Spoken like someone brainwashed by Fox. If you’re putting people like Tucker on a pedestal, you should rethink your priorities. Maybe you understand he’s a simple propagandist, but a lot of people buy right into what he says as fact. One thing you conveniently leave out: I never tout people like Maddow either. But to say they’re dangerous and Fox isn’t is disingenuous at best.
I love the idea that our paths may have crossed in college at some point. We'll get beers someday, I hope, if we haven't already (unknowingly).
Sincere question and maybe a little off kilter but still on topic, do you think those who choose to ingrain their hatred of a President in every walk of life are just projecting their own personal misery on to others via Trump? It’s fascinating to think about and equally as sad when you see how some behave and act day in and day out. It’s a President.
??????????????????????
He did not say this, nor does he think this. You're fighting ghosts and strawmen with comments like this. Stay more focused.
Oh shut the fukk up with this gibberish, dude. 210k dead and zero cares given by this administration and your feefees are upset because people aren’t happy with the guy in charge.
You should visit the boards more often then. Or don’t. Folks like atl suckle hard at the teet of bottom feeders like Tucker.
I think some people have a VERY strong aversion to Trump. Almost physiological in nature. I don't understand it personally. But he actually disgusts people, for whatever reason. Some of those people I believe to be racist and sexist - others I think are just petty or envious - and others I believe Trump brings on himself, by not being clear and allowing people to read into things he says while he just rambles on about nonsense.
Again, we should be judging our presidents by their policy and actions, not whatever they rambled about. I've been very consistent in this I started voting in the 2000 election - I'm not going to upend my entire belief system because Donald Trump ran for president.
I also think social media has completely warped how people view what's happening, and I think the extensive magnifying glass on Trump doesn't portray him in a good light - but this is something that would have wrecked almost any other president in modern times had it happened, except Obama - and even then, the media clearly covered for Obama's indiscretions for whatever reason. I supported/voted for the guy twice and he got a Nobel Peace Prize for drone bombing civilians.
I still haven't turned in my ballot and really doubt I'll be voting for Trump - but I think 50 years from now, history will remember his presidency not as an "UPTICK IN WHITE SUPREMACY AND THE SIGN OF DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY" but as a rather decent president - certainly better than Clinton will be viewed - and the story may be more how our society absolutely lost their mind in a moral panic drummed up my social media, the mainstream media and strawmen and ghosts that they couldn't stop thinking about.
"VOTE LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT! BIDEN 2020"
All emotion, all the time. The hyperbole is never ending.
Thanks Ashleeighe. But I'm following you for the best places to party and where your scenic IG shots are - not your political views.
I think you might want to "educated yourself" instead of just relying on what Sean, Rush, Tucker and Laura are spoon feeding you. You do realize the whole Joe is a socialist thing is ridiculous, and the result of the "vaunted" Trump political operation being unable to come up with a new line of attack when they did not get Bernie or Liz.
First, you do realize that Joe's nickname when he was in the senate was the Senator from Visa, because he was so friendly to the credit card issuers domiciled in Delaware. But, of course, who does not know that credit card companies are well known fronts for socialist activity. I cut up my Visa and AmEx years ago to keep those socialist punks from making another cent off of me. Second, you of course realize that Joe repeatedly worked to block or limit legislation that would give the SEC power to limit business friendly portions of the Delaware General Corporations Law. Yes, how silly of me, we all know that Delaware is known for it rigorous corporate governance statutes. Why else would virtually ever public company be incorporated/formed in Delaware. Businesses are obviously going to self-select in to the most restrictive corporate governance model. That is what all good socialist do. All those pesky law review articles about Delaware and the race to the bottom w/r/t corporate governance were just psy ops to seed the ground for a future socialist candidate. Third, Biden's has received donations from Wall Street at a rate of 5x that of Trump during this election cycle. But, who could miss that Wall Street is a hot bed of socialist organizing. They just pretended to be capitalists so they could lull all of us to sleep before springing their Manchurian Candidate on us who would bring socialism to the land and limit their ability to make profit. I bet they cannot wait to be able to sell those fancy condos on the upper east side or mansions in Westchester to move in to a kibbutz where they are clearly more comfortable. Those darn tricksters at Goldman, JPM, etc. I sure bet they are going to be glad that they can stop pretending to be in favor of capitalism.
Plus, let us not forget that Joe was one of the last, if not the last, dem politician elected outside of the deep south that was against busing or the fact that he himself has noted that he did not see an issue working with segregationists even after most of his part treated them as persona non grata. So yes, Joe is clearly a socialist, and save me the but Kamala is far more liberal. Yes, she is, but history has all kinds of instances of a president who was viewed as being moderate/extreme picking a running mate that was viewed as their opposite. Reagan picked Bush who was his opposite; W picked Cheney who was his opposite. History has very few instances like Clinton picking Gore who was a less charismatic clone of himself (and used his pants for something other than ankle warmers). I don't love Joe, but at least put some though in to why you do not like him not just parrot silly attacks that are simply not supported by the facts.
Last edited:
Let's set aside what Sean, Rush, Tucker, and Laura are saying and listen to Obama and Bernie.
Bernie Sanders predicts Biden to be 'most progressive president' since FDR
On eve of Democratic convention, Sanders tout's Biden's liberal credentials after carefully orchestrated effort to portray VP selection Kamala Harris as a moderate.
justthenews.com
but now it must change:
the institution = the deep state,
as trump has taught.
trump cannot afford those checks and balances now because they are the deep state, undermining him.
Let's set aside what Sean, Rush, Tucker, and Laura are saying and listen to Obama and Bernie.
Bernie Sanders predicts Biden to be 'most progressive president' since FDR
On eve of Democratic convention, Sanders tout's Biden's liberal credentials after carefully orchestrated effort to portray VP selection Kamala Harris as a moderate.
Yeah, the fact that you cite to two sources that are viewed as partisan reinforces my view that you are getting your information from an echo chamber. Newsguard identifies both websites as "red" which means known pattern of bias or inaccurate reporting and Media/Bias Fact Check which is less scientific but still well regarded identifies both sources as having a pattern of bias.
Just The News
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com
The Daily Wire
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
mediabiasfactcheck.com
But, even assuming argendo that both articles are 100% accurate and provide all relevant context, progressive does not mean socialist. Progressive is the analog to the term conservative in the political context. The corollary in the Republican context would be to say that Trump is a fascist because he purports to be extremely conservative (which he is not in the classical or modern sense of the term but that is a discussion for another day). I am sure you would take issue with Trump being labeled a fascist (as would I), but it is the perfectly analogous abuse of the meaning of the term conservative. The conservative media has managed to convince its followers that progressive is synonymous with socialist, which is not accurate. JFK and Johnson are both unambiguously progressives. Yet they started the process of getting us to the moon, passed the voting rights act, Medicare, etc. which are all things that the bulk of America views as positive. They did not create an economic system like that in the Scandinavian countries which mixes capitalism with socialism.
It is just like a certain candidate for the house in Indiana who keeps claiming that she grew up in a socialist country. I suspect the citizens of the USSR would be surprised to know that they lived in a socialist not communist country, and, if you do not understand the difference between socialism and communism and why her attempt to treat the two as interchangeable is funny, I cannot help you. Biden has all kinds of legit issues and a better tactician would be hammering him on those issues not trying to force a square peg into a round hole by claiming Biden is a socialist or running a campaign that focuses on using Fox News generated buzz words that are obvious to a certain segment of people but are more or less meaningless to a large chunk of the population. Joe by historical standards is a very weak candidate (voters rejected him for the job twice before and only gave it to him this time after all the other moderates dropped out clearing the deck for him), but Trump is a one trick pony. A more disciplined candidate who had a campaign staff that was not made up of misfit toys could and should win this election in a walk, but the numbers are showing Trump is moving more and more toward loosing in a 1980 like landslide.
Last edited:
Arguendo? It was disturbing enough to discover in the past week that kids are allowed on this forum, but lawyers too? Are there no standards for this forum?Yeah, the fact that you cite to two sources that are viewed as partisan reinforces my view that you are getting your information from an echo chamber. Newsguard identifies both websites as "red" which means known pattern of bias or inaccurate reporting and Media/Bias Fact Check which is less scientific but still well regarded identifies both sources as having a pattern of bias.
Just The News
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
The Daily Wire
RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
But, even assuming argendo that both articles are 100% accurate and provide all relevant context, progressive does not mean socialist. Progressive is the analog to the term conservative in the political context. The corollary in the Republican context would be to say that Trump is a fascist because he purports to be extremely conservative (which he is not in the classical or modern sense of the term but that is a discussion for another day). I am sure you would take issue with Trump being labeled a fascist (as would I), but it is the perfectly analogous abuse of the meaning of the term conservative. The conservative media has managed to convince its followers that progressive is synonymous with socialist, which is not accurate. JFK and Johnson are both unambiguously progressives. Yet they started the process of getting us to the moon, passed the voting rights act, Medicare, etc. which are all things that the bulk of America views as positive. They did not create an economic system like that in the Scandinavian countries which mixes capitalism with socialism.
It is just like a certain candidate for the house in Indiana who keeps claiming that she grew up in a socialist country. I suspect the citizens of the USSR would be surprised to know that they lived in a socialist not communist country, and, if you do not understand the difference between socialism and communism and why her attempt to treat the two as interchangeable is funny, I cannot help you. Biden has all kinds of legit issues and a better tactician would be hammering him on those issues not trying to force a square peg into a round hole by claiming Biden is a socialist or running a campaign that focuses on using Fox News generated buzz words that are obvious to a certain segment of people but are more or less meaningless to a large chunk of the population. Joe by historical standards is a very weak candidate (voters rejected him for the job twice before and only gave it to him this time after all the other moderates dropped out clearing the deck for him), but Trump is a one trick pony. A more disciplined candidate who had a campaign staff that was not made up of misfit toys could and should win this election in a walk, but the numbers are showing Trump is moving more and more toward loosing in a 1980 like landslide.
Btw, what do you mean that Trump is a one-trick pony? What is the one trick?
Shh, do not tell everyone on here my kind throw around $500 words that mean exactly the same thing as "for the sake of argument" to appear learned (or, is that feel superior? I can never remember what our secret handbook says about the reason we are supposed to use pretentious Latin words and phrases in lieu of plain English).
On your question, he effectively has one approach to campaigning and that is to attack the individual personally not engage on substance. He is the antithesis of a happy warrior like a Reagan who had the ability to articulate why the conservative position was superior to the democratic position and get people to change their thinking. It is increasingly clear to me that he and his core supporters are blind to the fact that his win in 2016 was as much or more about the fact that people despise the Clintons as it was that people liked him. This time where he is facing an admittedly very flawed opponent but one who is generally liked at a personal level his bombast and bomb throwing is not having the same effect, but he is not able to pivot off it to a more traditional campaign strategy. He is just doubling down on the American carnage narrative (which as W famously said about it "well, that was some weird sh*t"), which is basically a rip off of Nixon's law and order strategy but without any specific plans like Nixon had, instead of pivoting off it to a more substantive message (e.g. passing an infrastructure bill within first 100 days to put money in to the economy and rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure, a plan to cause medical and pharmaceutical manufacturing to come back to the U.S. from China, finding a press secretary who knows how to pronounce the White House doctor's name correctly (i.e. 2 syllables not 3), etc.).
