What Did President Trump Do Now?

Anteater · 03-09-2017, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

in·sin·u·a·tion

inˌsinyo͞oˈāSH(ə)n/
noun

an unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad.

So? There was absolutely no reason to go back weeks after the fact and change that article's headline. Snopes already "debunked" (sorta) the original NYT article. I used that NY Post article as a reference point of what their motivation MIGHT have been. Because again, there is no good reason to change a headline from that long ago. You love to insinuate about Trump regardless of what Trump-related topic it might be: I noticed something suspicious that's tangentially related to this current wiretapping accusation back n' forth and you conveniently ignore it.

But you didn't seem to catch any of that from my original post, and thus here we are.

**Frownland** · 03-09-2017, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

So? There was absolutely no reason to go back weeks after the fact and change that article's headline. Snopes already "debunked" (sorta) the original NYT article. I used that NY Post article as a reference point of what their motivation MIGHT have been. Because again, there is no good reason to change a headline from that long ago.

Why is it so bad?

It just sounds like you're opinion on this is driven by partisanship than anything really.

Anteater · 03-09-2017, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Why is it so bad?

It just sounds like you're opinion is driven by partisanship than anything really.

Pointing out something suspicious that doesn't paint Trump as the anti-christ is not partisan. I'm providing balance to Chula's mob mentality. When I see a paper like the NYT doing a major headline (and who knows what else) change like that quietly and without fanfare, then that should tell you there's something more to this story. Actions speak louder than words, right?

I'm hard on everyone, including Trump. I have criticized him before and I'll continue to do so. Reasonably and looking from ALL possible angles. Just like I did with Obama and Bush in the past.

See, I think Trump is narrow minded in most respects and thus I write off a lot of what he does as aspects of an egoistic personality. This aspect of him is what infuriates most people, but to me it's nothing new so I don't hate him for it. He even drives guys like Steve Bannon crazy because he does whatever he wants, which causes everyone else in his administration to scramble just to keep up. And he's always been like that as far back as I remember seeing him. So its easy for me to just look at Trump for what he is (a boor) and focus more on the actions of his opposition to get a better idea at the full scope of current events.

Guys like Chula can cry themselves to sleep at night worrying that Trump almost made money with sleazy Russian real estate deals. That's a waste of effort. We have real problems that predate Trump, especially in regards to the NSA, the media, Wall-Street and our intelligence agencies. The beauty of it all is that Trump's eccentricities are shaking all kinds of trees. I'm looking forward to seeing what falls out.

**Frownland** · 03-09-2017, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

Pointing out something suspicious that doesn't paint Trump as the anti-christ is not partisan.

Ja but globbing onto a half baked story like that is usually a common symptom of blind partisanship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

When I see a paper like the NYT doing a major headline (and who knows what else) change like that quietly and without fanfare, then that should tell you there's something more to this story.

It really isn't that "suspicious", I think you might just be ignorant of journalistic practices. What are you suspicious of them having done?

And again, *clears throat*

WHY IS IT BAD?????

You being suspicious is not that bad ftr.

Anteater · 03-09-2017, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It really isn't that "suspicious", I think you might just be ignorant of journalistic practices. What are you suspicious of them having done?

And again, *clears throat*

WHY IS IT BAD?????

You being suspicious is not that bad ftr.

I'll spell it out.

BECAUSE MAKING CHANGES TO AN ARTICLE LIKE THAT MEANS THEY THINK TRUMP HAS CREDIBILITY WITH HIS ACCUSATIONS

...otherwise, as I've said, they wouldn't have bothered. But because they've done that, they've sown doubt where there didn't need to be. Especially since it was something they published over a MONTH ago.

**Frownland** · 03-09-2017, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

I'll spell it out.

BECAUSE MAKING CHANGES TO AN ARTICLE LIKE THAT MEANS THEY THINK TRUMP HAS CREDIBILITY WITH HIS ACCUSATIONS

Possibly, are you sure that they're not attempting to make sure that their articles are accurate? I still don't see why it matters regardless.

Quote:

...otherwise, as I've said, they wouldn't have bothered.

Uh huh.

Quote:

Especially since it was something they published over a MONTH ago.

Entirely irrelevant and I will remind you again that you are clearly ignorant of what journalism entails if you think this point is a big deal at all. This whole thing is as ridiculous as Kelly Anne Conway's couch scandal.

Anteater · 03-09-2017, 04:59 PM

It wouldn't take the NYT a month to fix a front page headline for a story like that. I'm happy to agree to disagree though.

**Frownland** · 03-09-2017, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

It wouldn't take the NYT a month to fix a front page headline for a story like that. I'm happy to agree to disagree though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

That's one of the benefits of online journalism: you can change your information when new things come to light. Would you rather they clung to wrong ideas instead of change them?

It is weird that you say Trump's Baku nonstory is a waste of effort while thinking that the NYT change is worth your time.

Anteater · 03-09-2017, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

hat's one of the benefits of online journalism: you can change your information when new things come to light. Would you rather they clung to wrong ideas instead of change them?

But nothing new came to light at all other than Donald Trump making a stupid tweet / accusation. Hence why I bothered making my original post back in the Cretaceous Era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It is weird that you say Trump's Baku nonstory is a waste of effort while thinking that the NYT change is worth your time.

The Baku story is a good story, but it's irrelevant when the "goal" so to speak is to prove actual collusion with Russia when there's so much inconsistent information out there and nothing even close to a smoking gun.

**Frownland** · 03-09-2017, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

But nothing new came to light at all other than Donald Trump making a stupid tweet / accusation. Hence why I bothered making my original post back in the Cretaceous Era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Does it really matter? I can guarantee that every source you trust has retroactively changed their articles in light of new information and contexts. It's the nature of modern journalism.

.