Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   What Did President Trump Do Now? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/87986-what-did-president-trump-do-now.html)

Anteater 03-09-2017 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1812822)
Dude, as a certified Trump apologist, you linked the New York Post article in a lame attempt to bolster Trump's unbacked claims that Obama had Trump Towers bugged. Snopes blew the New York Post's insinuation, and yours' by default, out of the water.

Backpeddle all you want. But your intent by posting the NYP article originally was completely obvious. Go slink away now and find another tabloid article that supports your paranoid boy's view of his parallel universe.

Awaiting your "but I didn't vote for Trump" reply in 5... 4... 3... 2......

Wrong again kiddo. Go read my original post.

Chula Vista 03-09-2017 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1812734)
The New York Times backpedaling and changing the headline of an older article title in light of Trump's wiretapping accusations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1812834)
Wrong again kiddo. Go read my original post.

in·sin·u·a·tion

inˌsinyo͞oˈāSH(ə)n/
noun

an unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad.

Anteater 03-09-2017 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1812836)
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 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1812840)
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 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1812842)
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. :D

elphenor 03-09-2017 05:35 PM

this is some real boring irrelevant ****

Frownland 03-09-2017 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1812853)
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 (Post 1812853)
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 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1812858)
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 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1812859)
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 05:59 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. :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:05 AM.


© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.