|
Post by lucyg on Nov 22, 2016 2:48:28 GMT
I have to ask, why do you say that about liberals, but not conservatives? You saw what @lynlam posted. There isn't one shred of actual evidence for her claims, just a lot of right-wing hot air, but you blame the liberals for arguing with her rather than her for making that preposterous claim and then running off without supporting it in any way? No Clinton has made a single penny off the Foundation. They've done tons of good for many poor countries. They have a high Charity Watch rating. The pay-for-play claims have been debunked. But you're blaming US?! Apparently Lucyg we are just supposed to sit down shut up and take it up the wazoo. It's really getting to be unbelievable at the righteousness of some conservatives here, that they really don't see/care what they have done, and just blame the liberals for every loving thing. But gmcwife1 isn't a conservative, or at least, she isn't a Republican. She's independent and voted third party. So she's kind of neutral. I truly don't understand how she or anyone could read @lynlam's post, read our responses (well, mine ... I already don't remember what the others said) and complain that WE are the ones who don't want a serious discussion.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 2:56:42 GMT
Apparently Lucyg we are just supposed to sit down shut up and take it up the wazoo. It's really getting to be unbelievable at the righteousness of some conservatives here, that they really don't see/care what they have done, and just blame the liberals for every loving thing. But gmcwife1 isn't a conservative, or at least, she isn't a Republican. She's independent and voted third party. So she's kind of neutral. I truly don't understand how she or anyone could read @lynlam's post, read our responses (well, mine ... I already don't remember what the others said) and complain that WE are the ones who don't want a serious discussion. I wasn't (solely) speaking about gmcwife being conservative, it is/was some of the others, such as lynlam and others. And yes, it is mind boggling at being the ones blamed. Over and over and over.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:09:59 GMT
I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is. I have to ask, why do you say that about liberals, but not conservatives? You saw what @lynlam posted. There isn't one shred of actual evidence for her claims, just a lot of right-wing hot air, but you blame the liberals for arguing with her rather than her for making that preposterous claim and then running off without supporting it in any way? No Clinton has made a single penny off the Foundation. They've done tons of good for many poor countries. They have a high Charity Watch rating. The pay-for-play claims have been debunked. But you're blaming US?! Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? She didn't ask a question, she didn't accuse posters of anything, other then being funny. She didn't even start a fight. She just kind of went, huh, whatever. And left it at that. I know for me I sit here and read these threads and it's the same people posting over and over and can't they see they are just talking to themselves. Even the conservative named Gia isn't coming in any more. She used to come in to every political post so if even she isn't posting then I doubt others will either. So because lynlam or I replied does that mean a bunch of peas are going to descend on us demanding more? I don't think I've defended the conservatives treatment of the Obamas or the democrats. Heck I hate flip flops but don't even think I posted on the Obama flip flop thread. Posters keep asking why no conservatives are replying or posting. I think it's pretty obvious, but others don't. As usual in political threads we don't always see the same thing even though we are reading the same words I don't have an opinion on the Clinton foundation, I was just saying what I heard in the background, didn't say I agreed with it or didn't agree with it Personally I think Donald is going to look for every loophole he can find because that is how he ran his businesses. That's what businesses do, they look for loopholes and ways to make the laws work for them so they don't lose money. I was stunned that Hillary didn't win. I really thought that many of the people that said they were voting for him would really chicken out and vote for her. I don't support him or agree with him any more then anyone else does. But I'm not going to make every conservative pea defend him or demand they tell me what they were thinking every time he does something. I'm not even going to blame them for him, I think the blame is on more of us. The presidency is not a skit on SNL, it's real life and now we are stuck with him. And yes, it sucks and I like seeing the thread asking what people are doing to make a change.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:16:13 GMT
Apparently Lucyg we are just supposed to sit down shut up and take it up the wazoo. It's really getting to be unbelievable at the righteousness of some conservatives here, that they really don't see/care what they have done, and just blame the liberals for every loving thing. But gmcwife1 isn't a conservative, or at least, she isn't a Republican. She's independent and voted third party. So she's kind of neutral. I truly don't understand how she or anyone could read @lynlam 's post, read our responses (well, mine ... I already don't remember what the others said) and complain that WE are the ones who don't want a serious discussion. Look at the totality of the thread Forget lynlam's post - does the thread in it's entirety say 'We really want to talk to you and understand this'. To me it doesn't, to me it's a bunch of like minded people talking to each other and patting each other on the back saying 'see, this is what they did and now we are all screwed'. Which we are, but that doesn't really leave it up for discussion because it's placing blame and people don't want to talk when they are being blamed for the downfall of their country. And thank you - no I'm not a conservative, I'm very much in the middle. Though I have to say I probably defend the underdog way too much, so that is probably why it seems I'm defending them. I'm used to being the buffer between employees and management.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 3:18:56 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? She didn't ask a question, she didn't accuse posters of anything, other then being funny. She didn't even start a fight. She just kind of went, huh, whatever. And left it at that. Ok, I've gotten confused. Are you talking about lynlam here? Is that who the 'she' is that you're referring to? I will totally agree with you that I loved the threads that were about what are you doing to bring about changes? There were lots of good ideas. People were sharing valuable information, contact info, etc.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 22, 2016 3:19:34 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? Well, I suppose she doesn't *need* evidence, but if someone posts something someone *else* has an opinion about, it's hardly abusive if the second poster *does* post evidence that refutes the first poster's (unsubstantiated) opinion. I mean, sure, you can post any ol' thing you want, but you've got to own it, right? Accountability and everything, right? The rest of the board doesn't have to keep quiet just because you have an opinion.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 22, 2016 3:24:57 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? She didn't ask a question, she didn't accuse posters of anything, other then being funny. She didn't even start a fight. She just kind of went, huh, whatever. And left it at that. From my view in the bleachers, it looks like she called people "frothing hypocrites." Not exactly benign. And no, not the kind of comment I, personally, want to engage with in the hopes of having fruitful discussion. Maybe I'm reading this whole train of thought incorrectly, but the accusations seem misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:25:05 GMT
Apparently Lucyg we are just supposed to sit down shut up and take it up the wazoo. It's really getting to be unbelievable at the righteousness of some conservatives here, that they really don't see/care what they have done, and just blame the liberals for every loving thing. But gmcwife1 isn't a conservative, or at least, she isn't a Republican. She's independent and voted third party. So she's kind of neutral. I truly don't understand how she or anyone could read @lynlam 's post, read our responses (well, mine ... I already don't remember what the others said) and complain that WE are the ones who don't want a serious discussion. Sorry lucyg I saw her say it was hysterical, but did not see her last word of hypocrites. Long 9 hours of auditing and I missed that. Ok, you guys can forget I was here and carry on I didn't realize she called you a name <damn it> Hopefully the next conservative that shows up will do it without the name calling.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:27:41 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? She didn't ask a question, she didn't accuse posters of anything, other then being funny. She didn't even start a fight. She just kind of went, huh, whatever. And left it at that. Ok, I've gotten confused. Are you talking about lynlam here? Is that who the 'she' is that you're referring to? I will totally agree with you that I loved the threads that were about what are you doing to bring about changes? There were lots of good ideas. People were sharing valuable information, contact info, etc. I was talking about lynlam, but I missed where she called you guys a name. I clocked out an hour ago and I overlooked that little gem, but didn't want to post and run
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 22, 2016 3:28:50 GMT
Posts that state opinions as facts are very different from posts that state opinions of thoughts/feelings/experiences.
"The sky is always blue," will get pushback, and rightly so.
"The sky looks so blue today," will likely lead to a thread full of gorgeous sky pictures.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 3:30:41 GMT
Ok, I've gotten confused. Are you talking about lynlam here? Is that who the 'she' is that you're referring to? I will totally agree with you that I loved the threads that were about what are you doing to bring about changes? There were lots of good ideas. People were sharing valuable information, contact info, etc. I was talking about lynlam, but I missed where she called you guys a name. I clocked out an hour ago and I overlooked that little gem, but didn't want to post and run Thank you for clarifying. And for letting everyone know you hadn't seen her name calling. I honestly wasn't surprised that she had, that's totally her M.O. Attack and run. Lather, rinse and repeat. Save
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:32:14 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? She didn't ask a question, she didn't accuse posters of anything, other then being funny. She didn't even start a fight. She just kind of went, huh, whatever. And left it at that. From my view in the bleachers, it looks like she called people "frothing hypocrites." Not exactly benign. And no, not the kind of comment I, personally, want to engage with in the hopes of having fruitful discussion. Maybe I'm reading this whole train of thought incorrectly, but the accusations seem misplaced. I'm not going to answer each of you, but I did miss this and addressed this with lucy And now I'm leaving my work desk for the night.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Nov 22, 2016 3:37:03 GMT
Why does she need evidence to have an opinion? Well, I suppose she doesn't *need* evidence, but if someone posts something someone *else* has an opinion about, it's hardly abusive if the second poster *does* post evidence that refutes the first poster's (unsubstantiated) opinion. I mean, sure, you can post any ol' thing you want, but you've got to own it, right? Accountability and everything, right? The rest of the board doesn't have to keep quiet just because you have an opinion. Actually no, I don't expect or demand that everyone provide evidence to back up their opinion I just don't have a need to call people out when they don't agree with me. To me an opinion is just that. Dh and I never agree on the heat in the house. I say it's cold, he says it's warm. Ok, dear, show me your evidence that it's warm Heck I don't even bother showing him my goose bumps.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 22, 2016 3:37:19 GMT
I want, and I'm thinking most people want, honest discussion about what's going on. IS Trump working the Presidency to benefit his business?? I'm honestly asking. It sure LOOKS like he is- but if there are laws that say what he's doing is legal, I'd be open to hearing about it. We've never HAD a businessman elected President before; it's always been career public servants.
I'm personally not looking to only talk with myself or like-minded individuals; I honestly WOULD like a discussion about it. I'd LIKE to see more info about this posted from multiple news sources; it's just that no one has posted any.
And posting Hillary Clinton / Clinton foundation information really wasn't helpful to this thread, at all. I DO wish lynlam had posted her opinion on the thread topic; I, for one, WOULD be interested to know what she thinks about it.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 22, 2016 3:37:26 GMT
From my view in the bleachers, it looks like she called people "frothing hypocrites." Not exactly benign. And no, not the kind of comment I, personally, want to engage with in the hopes of having fruitful discussion. Maybe I'm reading this whole train of thought incorrectly, but the accusations seem misplaced. I'm not going to answer each of you, but I did miss this and addressed this with lucy And now I'm leaving my work desk for the night. Got it. Thanks for clarifying. (I hope you're not in my time zone, because it's well past time to get away from work!)
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 22, 2016 3:48:53 GMT
From my view in the bleachers, it looks like she called people "frothing hypocrites." Not exactly benign. And no, not the kind of comment I, personally, want to engage with in the hopes of having fruitful discussion. Maybe I'm reading this whole train of thought incorrectly, but the accusations seem misplaced. I'm not going to answer each of you, but I did miss this and addressed this with lucy And now I'm leaving my work desk for the night. Yes, I saw you addressed that with Lucy after I posted. Sorry, should have kept my nose out of it...but the poster we're discussing always makes me twitchy, so I was baffled at the defense of her. And...I've really been trying to stay out of the various meta discussions about political posting style, but I do get discouraged when I read blanket conclusions about the posting intentions of either liberals OR conservatives. I would like to think I don't post just to tell people they're wrong...so, any similar claims about intention that herd everybody into a pack triggers my twitchy reflex, too...and that talk sure seems to abound in today's threads. (Basically, I seem to be twitch-prone tonight, so I should probably follow your lead and slip away, also. )
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 3:49:59 GMT
But gmcwife1 isn't a conservative, or at least, she isn't a Republican. She's independent and voted third party. So she's kind of neutral. I truly don't understand how she or anyone could read @lynlam 's post, read our responses (well, mine ... I already don't remember what the others said) and complain that WE are the ones who don't want a serious discussion. Look at the totality of the thread Forget lynlam's post - does the thread in it's entirety say 'We really want to talk to you and understand this'. To me it doesn't, to me it's a bunch of like minded people talking to each other and patting each other on the back saying 'see, this is what they did and now we are all screwed'. Which we are, but that doesn't really leave it up for discussion because it's placing blame and people don't want to talk when they are being blamed for the downfall of their country. And thank you - no I'm not a conservative, I'm very much in the middle. Though I have to say I probably defend the underdog way too much, so that is probably why it seems I'm defending them. I'm used to being the buffer between employees and management. Can I sit by you?
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Nov 22, 2016 3:50:12 GMT
and we have another tweet:
Yes, it's all the "crooked media" to blame. Clearly he said that he would continue to be running his businesses and making property deals while he was president...everyone must have just missed that part... Although to those who voted for him, they should have thought about this a little more before electing a man who was going to take you for a ride like this.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 22, 2016 3:52:03 GMT
Well, I suppose she doesn't *need* evidence, but if someone posts something someone *else* has an opinion about, it's hardly abusive if the second poster *does* post evidence that refutes the first poster's (unsubstantiated) opinion. I mean, sure, you can post any ol' thing you want, but you've got to own it, right? Accountability and everything, right? The rest of the board doesn't have to keep quiet just because you have an opinion. Actually no, I don't expect or demand that everyone provide evidence to back up their opinion I just don't have a need to call people out when they don't agree with me. To me an opinion is just that. Dh and I never agree on the heat in the house. I say it's cold, he says it's warm. Ok, dear, show me your evidence that it's warm Heck I don't even bother showing him my goose bumps. But whether a room is too hot or too cold is a subjective thing. Opinions reign in the realm of subjective things. Whether an animal is a dog or not, or whether someone has actually been charged with a crime or not; these are not subjective. If you tell me that animal with the big gray trunk is a dog, I'm going to require your evidence. (And I promise to be very public and humble about my amazement if that turns out to be a dog with a big gray trunk.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 4:07:56 GMT
and we have another tweet:
Yes, it's all the "crooked media" to blame. Clearly he said that he would continue to be running his businesses and making property deals while he was president...everyone must have just missed that part... Although to those who voted for him, they should have thought about this a little more before electing a man who was going to take you for a ride like this. Help.Me. I just (insert gibberish here) Save
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Nov 22, 2016 4:11:29 GMT
The Washington Post has a summary article today about various Trump international holdings and potential conflicts, for those interested: Trump global conflicts
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Nov 22, 2016 4:29:00 GMT
I want, and I'm thinking most people want, honest discussion about what's going on. IS Trump working the Presidency to benefit his business?? I'm honestly asking. It sure LOOKS like he is- but if there are laws that say what he's doing is legal, I'd be open to hearing about it. We've never HAD a businessman elected President before; it's always been career public servants. I'm personally not looking to only talk with myself or like-minded individuals; I honestly WOULD like a discussion about it. I'd LIKE to see more info about this posted from multiple news sources; it's just that no one has posted any. And posting Hillary Clinton / Clinton foundation information really wasn't helpful to this thread, at all. I DO wish lynlam had posted her opinion on the thread topic; I, for one, WOULD be interested to know what she thinks about it. Someone upthread said something about Trump always taking advantage of loopholes, which surprises no one. There are a zillion legal loopholes and I'm sure Trump's accountants and lawyers will take advantage of every one they need. As you said, we haven't had a [muti-national billionaire] businessman elected President before, so maybe there *are* loopholes he can use and stay -- barely stay -- on this side of the law. The thing is, Trump said he'd put the businesses in trust and have his kids run things. He, at the very least, implied that he'd keep HIS business and our COUNTRY'S business separate. He hasn't even been at this two weeks and already he's mixing his kids, his business, and the country's businesses together. And then he gets on social media and whines because everyone won't just sit back and keep quiet about it. It's obvious that, for decades, he has surrounded himself with sycophants. This whole idea of being criticized and held accountable appears to be shocking to him.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Nov 22, 2016 4:40:25 GMT
I want, and I'm thinking most people want, honest discussion about what's going on. IS Trump working the Presidency to benefit his business?? I'm honestly asking. It sure LOOKS like he is- but if there are laws that say what he's doing is legal, I'd be open to hearing about it. We've never HAD a businessman elected President before; it's always been career public servants. I'm personally not looking to only talk with myself or like-minded individuals; I honestly WOULD like a discussion about it. I'd LIKE to see more info about this posted from multiple news sources; it's just that no one has posted any. And posting Hillary Clinton / Clinton foundation information really wasn't helpful to this thread, at all. I DO wish lynlam had posted her opinion on the thread topic; I, for one, WOULD be interested to know what she thinks about it. Someone upthread said something about Trump always taking advantage of loopholes, which surprises no one. There are a zillion legal loopholes and I'm sure Trump's accountants and lawyers will take advantage of every one they need. As you said, we haven't had a [muti-national billionaire] businessman elected President before, so maybe there *are* loopholes he can use and stay -- barely stay -- on this side of the law. The thing is, Trump said he'd put the businesses in trust and have his kids run things. He, at the very least, implied that he'd keep HIS business and our COUNTRY'S business separate. He hasn't even been at this two weeks and already he's mixing his kids, his business, and the country's businesses together. And then he gets on social media and whines because everyone won't just sit back and keep quiet about it. It's obvious that, for decades, he has surrounded himself with sycophants. This whole idea of being criticized and held accountable appears to be shocking to him. Yes, he lied. Bigly.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 29, 2024 11:14:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 4:44:32 GMT
Actually no, I don't expect or demand that everyone provide evidence to back up their opinion I just don't have a need to call people out when they don't agree with me. To me an opinion is just that. Dh and I never agree on the heat in the house. I say it's cold, he says it's warm. Ok, dear, show me your evidence that it's warm Heck I don't even bother showing him my goose bumps. But whether a room is too hot or too cold is a subjective thing. Opinions reign in the realm of subjective things. Whether an animal is a dog or not, or whether someone has actually been charged with a crime or not; these are not subjective. If you tell me that animal with the big gray trunk is a dog, I'm going to require your evidence. (And I promise to be very public and humble about my amazement if that turns out to be a dog with a big gray trunk.) Was going to say the same thing about "cold" "warm"! We'd get a lot further if people would either say "It's cold in here TO ME" (making it a personal, not absolute) or "it's cold in here, it's only 60 degrees" (evidence) or both. Asking for evidence, or requesting that you speak for yourself vs. in absolutes ("it's cold in here" is an absolute) would save us a lot of arguments in life in general.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Nov 22, 2016 13:10:00 GMT
CNN has people on talking about this last night. They talked about the logistics of a "blind trust" and also other possible consequences of his business dealings being intertwined with the presidency. It was even more scary and frustrating than I thought. One person was adamant that he needs to sell off the businesses completely or he would eventually get into legal trouble. The others said that would be ideal but unlikely, especially given that Trump ran on the premise that he would give his businesses to his kids (which isn't a blind trust). I think what nobody thought was that his kids would have such a role on the presidency.
I have a lot of concerns but am particularly concerned about his treatment of the press. What can we do to ensure that this doesn't spiral even further downward? He is undermining the press and the right of the people to have a free press and know what is going on with the president.
On another note, CNN just had a poll that said that 53% of people are confident that trump will do a good job as president and 46% approve of how he is handling the transition. However, only 32% have a lot of confidence in his picks for office. I think a lot of people are just sticking their head in the sand. Whether that is because they need to decompress after the election, or because they don't care about politics typically anyway, or because they like what he is doing, I don't know. I think after elections people generally just let the politicians do that they do. But that is a big mistake this time.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Nov 22, 2016 13:18:03 GMT
CNN has people on talking about this last night. They talked about the logistics of a "blind trust" and also other possible consequences of his business dealings being intertwined with the presidency. It was even more scary and frustrating than I thought. One person was adamant that he needs to sell off the businesses completely or he would eventually get into legal trouble. The others said that would be ideal but unlikely, especially given that Trump ran on the premise that he would give his businesses to his kids (which isn't a blind trust). I think what nobody thought was that his kids would have such a role on the presidency. I have a lot of concerns but am particularly concerned about his treatment of the press. What can we do to ensure that this doesn't spiral even further downward? He is undermining the press and the right of the people to have a free press and know what is going on with the president. On another note, CNN just had a poll that said that 53% of people are confident that trump will do a good job as president and 46% approve of how he is handling the transition. However, only 32% have a lot of confidence in his picks for office. I think a lot of people are just sticking their head in the sand. Whether that is because they need to decompress after the election, or because they don't care about politics typically anyway, or because they like what he is doing, I don't know. I think after elections people generally just let the politicians do that they do. But that is a big mistake this time. I saw a poll this morning that showed 43% confidence in his ability to lead the country financially, which is higher than the last several Presidents. Time will tell I guess, but hopefully sooner than later. I completely agree with you on the press concerns. He may not intend it this way, but IMO it's almost like he's inviting suspicion.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 22, 2016 13:20:52 GMT
He hasn't even been at this two weeks and already he's mixing his kids, his business, and the country's businesses together. He isn't even technically President yet. What's he going to do when he is if he is acting this way now?
|
|
|
Post by Fairlyoddparent on Nov 22, 2016 13:29:45 GMT
ππππππ You guys are hysterical. Two words: Clinton foundation. There has been a plethora of evidence of major wrong doing, access buying, pay for play, and general ripping off of poor countries to line the pockets of your candidate, but y'all go ahead and froth over this. Hypocrites. I heard on ABC or NBC this weekend that it was ok because the Clinton foundation was for charity. Can't remember which channel it was as I just had it on in the background. It was either someone on George Stephonapolous or whatever the similar program is on NBC. It was not Meet the Press though. I'm surprised you posted lynlam. I honestly don't think people want a conversation, I think they really just want to keep talking to themselves wondering why none of the conservatives, and lately, independents aren't posting. I didn't support him or vote for him, so I can't speak for his supporters. But I'm pretty sure most of them aren't going to bother answering. We've seen what happens when they do. No one wants to say, 'oh, so that's what you think'. They just want to tell them how wrong their thought is. Yes! Wise words.......
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 22, 2016 13:31:46 GMT
I got this from Dan Rather's FB...here's the latest tweets and the media slamming: AND read the NYtimes response!!!
Donald Trump cancels his scheduled meeting with the The New York Times today, announcing it in a series of early morning tweets saying:
I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice.
Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!
The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that - but why announce?
The New York Times responded saying: "We were unaware that the meeting was cancelled until we saw the President Elect's tweet this morning. We did not change the ground rules and made no attempt to. They tried to yesterday β asking for a private meeting and no on-the-record segment, which we refused to agree to. In the end, we concluded with them that we would go back to the original plan of a small off-the-record session and a larger on-the-record session with reporters and columnists."
This guy is a pathological liar! Tony Swartz had him pegged so right!
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Nov 22, 2016 13:55:32 GMT
I got this from Dan Rather's FB...here's the latest tweets and the media slamming: AND read the NYtimes response!!!
Donald Trump cancels his scheduled meeting with the The New York Times today, announcing it in a series of early morning tweets saying:
I cancelled today's meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice.
Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!
The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that - but why announce?
The New York Times responded saying: "We were unaware that the meeting was cancelled until we saw the President Elect's tweet this morning. We did not change the ground rules and made no attempt to. They tried to yesterday β asking for a private meeting and no on-the-record segment, which we refused to agree to. In the end, we concluded with them that we would go back to the original plan of a small off-the-record session and a larger on-the-record session with reporters and columnists."
This guy is a pathological liar! Tony Swartz had him pegged so right!
I think it's particularly telling that Trump is baffled by the NYT announcing criticism against them. It's called transparency. The Times has an ombudsman who regularly reviews complaints, writes about them in his column, and actually criticizes the newspaper himself. And significantly, the complaints about the Times election coverage include many criticisms that HRC was not covered fairly. And not for nothing, the complaints can come from anybody who claims to be a reader. Even Mr. Trump and his campaign. Also, last week Trump tweted that the NYT is losing hundreds of thousands of subscribers. The NYT had to put out a statement denying subscriptions are down.
|
|