• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2480 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
You would think by now people would stop taking what Lawrence O'Donnell says as anything but fiction. He has been caught making up stuff " breaking news" and had to apologize for it.
 
Which bit of that was "made up", or are you just going for the standard smear?
I did not say the two video's you posted were made up. I said he has been caught making stuff up, and I don't get into a habit of believing a journo who lies.

Are you going to say he has not had to apologize for making up news? Or are you trying to support a liar?
 
Last edited:
It is not really a hard concept. Do you want to believe the reporter when he makes a statement of fact? Yes or No? If that reporter has been known to make up facts, as in this example O'Donnell has, then I don't believe a word he says. I certainly would not go around touting his opinions as some great ground breaking example.
https://www.thewrap.com/lawrence-odonnell-error-judgment-trump-defamation/
Not an O'Donnell fan myself, but...

I'm curious if you use the same standards for your own media consumption. If a media outlet or reporter has ever been known to lie or make things up, should we assume you never use that media source again?

It would be a good policy. We'd all be better if we all followed it.

I'm guessing given your posts here, that you're a tad less critical of certain other media sources. Just a tad.
 
Reactions: nevele neves
Not an O'Donnell fan myself, but...

I'm curious if you use the same standards for your own media consumption. If a media outlet or reporter has ever been known to lie or make things up, should we assume you never use that media source again?

It would be a good policy. We'd all be better if we all followed it.

I'm guessing given your posts here, that you're a tad less critical of certain other media sources. Just a tad.
I'm trying to come up with an example. I read lots of things from different sources.
the hill
politico
christian science monitor
wall street journal

This is a good site that gives an idea of what bias is going on.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
 
I'm trying to come up with an example. I read lots of things from different sources.
the hill
politico
christian science monitor
wall street journal

This is a good site that gives an idea of what bias is going on.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
Those are entirely reasonable sources. The question though, was whether you apply the "O'Donnell lied" (quotes mine) standard to all the media you consume. Listing some factual and relatively centrist sites doesn't answer that question.

The New York Times for example, has had some issues with writers who make things up, but the "Factual" rating from that site is still (rightly) HIGH.

Fair and correct to be critical of media lies. Hard to imagine how one could be a fan of Trump with this sort of philosophy, however. Either one objects to lies or one excuses them. Can't be a Trump fan and complain about some left-wing pundit making something up at some point in the past. Trump literally wouldn't last 5 minutes by that standard. The right has, IMO, utterly abdicated any moral standing on this issue.

Not an argument a Trumpist can make with any credibility. Would it be fair to say your'e a fan of the President? Seems like you're touting him quite a bit on here.
 
Last edited:
I did not say the two video's you posted were made up. I said he has been caught making stuff up, and I don't get into a habit of believing a journo who lies.

Are you going to say he has not had to apologize for making up news? Or are you trying to support a liar?
Yet you support a president who has lied about 22,000 times...so far.

Interesting tidbit plus various sources say trump mentioned a 'payment' by Turkey, to trump, for the US leaving the expected Syrian war zone. PLUS this
We know Trump had spoken with Erdogan before this decision, so maybe Trump does this in return for Erdogan not releasing what he has on MBS. This will then leave Turkey free to attack the Kurds, while the Russians hem them in from the south.
More to come..:oops:
 
Reactions: red_flanders
It's hard to overcome what is a profound sense of disappointment with everything Trump. Taking a call from Turkey and taking immediate, irrational and improvised stupid action running away. Bombing ourselves,destroying our equipment and position. It turns out it wasn't only for Turkey's ethnic cleansing, it was also to hurry up so we wouldn't get in Russia's way.
Within the first few hours our President started reacting similarly to a 10 year old,probably that same dimension of Trump's personality that had him write a letter to a head of state that nobody believed was written by an adult, let alone the President of the United States.a bad joke all around.

As Trump looks more obviously like a foreign policy phuckup, he has gone into another state of emotional crazy. Comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Trying to draw a parallel to a black man beaten and hung from a tree, killed and displayed in a racist ritual too ugly for most. Being lynched to Trump is the U.S.Congress acting on provisions of the United States Constitution.
disappointment furthered as Trump takes money from military school children to build a wall that he was denied funding from the US Congress.
so many things that all Americans support, better schools and hospitals. Things that a majority of Americans support like better infrastructure to include clean safe water. Trump promised that he would in whirlwind fashion fix everything. No ink on USMCA, less than zero for stability anywhere including the US where hate crimes rise. We didn't get health care or prescription drug overhaul.
The one thing Donald Trump has achieved is almost a complete withdrawal of America as a world leader. He has publicly stated and acted as if to lift others boats while sinking ours.
Seeing US military vehicles clearly marked with large flags so they are not accidentally engaged by our enemies is truly disgusting. Scurrying across the border only to find out in his haste to accommodate Putin, Trump didn't ask permission to enter and occupy Iraq. Idiot first rate.
 
Those are entirely reasonable sources. The question though, was whether you apply the "O'Donnell lied" (quotes mine) standard to all the media you consume. Listing some factual and relatively centrist sites doesn't answer that question.

The New York Times for example, has had some issues with writers who make things up, but the "Factual" rating from that site is still (rightly) HIGH.

Fair and correct to be critical of media lies. Hard to imagine how one could be a fan of Trump with this sort of philosophy, however. Either one objects to lies or one excuses them. Can't be a Trump fan and complain about some left-wing pundit making something up at some point in the past. Trump literally wouldn't last 5 minutes by that standard. The right has, IMO, utterly abdicated any moral standing on this issue.

Not an argument a Trumpist can make with any credibility. Would it be fair to say your'e a fan of the President? Seems like you're touting him quite a bit on here.
Comparing the hypocrisy from both sides of current politics is an example of both main party's having it wrong.
Saying that both sides lie is pointing out the obvious.

Yet everyone eventually choose a side.

The New York Times gets it correct sometimes.
 
Comparing the hypocrisy from both sides of current politics is an example of both main party's having it wrong.
Saying that both sides lie is pointing out the obvious.

Yet everyone eventually choose a side.

The New York Times gets it correct sometimes.
The last thing I'm doing is comparing the hypocrisy of both sides. I'm pointing out the false equivalency you're creating by supporting a pathological liar in Trump and simultaneously calling out one journalist for a lie, and challenging someone else for listening to anything that person says.

There is no comparison. What you're doing is wildly hypocritical. There is no "both sides" argument involved. This is about specific examples where you recoil from an apparent lie from one person, and embrace another who lies more than he tells the truth. You're getting pushback because not only is your position untenable, but you're actively criticizing someone because the person they quoted, according to you, lied at one point.

The only question is how you (and others who exhibit similar behavior) can rationalize such a position.
 
Reactions: gobuck
For some reason I can't reply to your post as it will not give me the option.

Point being whenever I see O'D or anything MSNBC I refuse to believe and in most instances I do not bother reading or watching.

With Trump who is not a journalist you say he lies, in fact many say he lies. I can point to any other politician who lies. Prob or most likely someone you support.

Trump will get reelected due to the lack of thought and vision from democrats. I could never vote for any of the current candidates for president on the Dem ticket. But since I do not have the right to vote in the USA it does not matter. I guess I could always just vote illegally.
 
Reactions: Merckx index
For some reason I can't reply to your post as it will not give me the option.

Point being whenever I see O'D or anything MSNBC I refuse to believe and in most instances I do not bother reading or watching.

With Trump who is not a journalist you say he lies, in fact many say he lies. I can point to any other politician who lies.
Prob or most likely someone you support.

Trump will get reelected due to the lack of thought and vision from democrats. I could never vote for any of the current candidates for president on the Dem ticket. But since I do not have the right to vote in the USA it does not matter. I guess I could always just vote illegally.
You clearly get your information from a pretty patterned and paced source although you claim a broader base. Fox News and other previously supportive of Trump have called him out repeatedly and most recently for the Syria BS. Trump's now declaring his "sanctions" on Turkey lifted and the "cease fire" as permanent. He creates the situation, the lie and constantly repeats it until his base echo the line. Right now I'm sitting across from a co-worker that was a Green Beret and performed diplomatic level chores in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas. He is absolutely livid that the investment of lives mopping up from the Iraq war are being lied away by a singularly/simple minded president (note the small letters). He is very aware of the strategic elements that Ukraine, Turkey and Syria represent and shares the opinion that Trump is seeking the long term payoff from Putin. That, or Putin has convinced him he will end his days if he doesn't continue wrecking US global partnerships. This morass is deeply interrelated in his mind. He voted for Trump and apologizes for it now.

By the way....there hasn't been any deep illegal voting in the US except for that GOP hack that collected rural votes in Virginia or some other backwater. He got popped. Don't think you will be voting here anytime soon.

Your argument about lying politicians is almost identical to your logic in the Armstrong forum.
 
Trump will get re elected.

The lower house will send impeachment to the upper house. The upper house will either not go forward or will not convict.

Currently the closed door depositions do nothing except cause suspicion onto the process.

Have any other presidents lied? How about under oath? I can think of one of them right now.
 
Trump will get re elected.

The lower house will send impeachment to the upper house. The upper house will either not go forward or will not convict.

Currently the closed door depositions do nothing except cause suspicion onto the process.

Have any other presidents lied? How about under oath? I can think of one of them right now.
As it stands at the moment; you can't be sure what the House of Reps will do. The Dems would want to get it right or not press it to the Senate. The GOP membership is desperate to move it along so they can kill it in the Senate and save their narrative about the Dem's socialism and whatever else is on their agenda.

This is potentially the third impeachment process.
*The first, Richard Nixon. His own party recognized the lines he crossed and left him the option to resign; which he did. This is an unacceptable end to a Trump presidency even though his actions are as egregious as Nixon's. He would surely suffer out of office with the many lawsuits and tax issues that would be uncovered. He'll want to end his days in office. Almost all interviews and testimony was behind closed doors until Congress was fairly certain.
*The second, Bill Clinton. A group of GOP senators felt this was their opportunity to do damage and they pursued a wildly public flogging over morals issues. Their biggest strategy was their attempt to get Clinton to lie under oath. It failed and he was a two-term President that helped shepherd in a vital economy after the Bush years of international financial doldrums. It is important to note that the rabid Clinton pursuers of his questionable morals are now the defenders of a guy who said "grab them by the pus
y" and has cheated with porn stars while married to his current wife.
***The possible third. Hopefully the Democratic House will not make the same mistake the GOP did with Clinton. Trump is capable of doing much more damage to his possible re election effort.

They don't have a current candidate that stands out. Joe Biden might, with the right running mate but the current support he enjoys is largely due to anti-Trump sentiment. Now that you're all caught up with what really happens here you can embrace your opinion. I can't argue the point until history moves along a little more.

America, like the UK and other societies that are being stampeded by narrow nationalists better get their collective sh*t together. Soon and it's not funny.
 
With Trump who is not a journalist you say he lies, in fact many say he lies. I can point to any other politician who lies. Prob or most likely someone you support.
This is a tired old argument that conflates breaking promises with lying. With saying that something will happen that doesn't happen with denying something that has already happened.

Yes, Obama lied when he said we could keep our old health insurance. After ACA was passed and became law of the land, he did not continue to claim that people could keep their former health insurance.

Yes, Bush lied when he said Iraq had WMD. He did not continue to insist that after a long search turned up no evidence for WMD.

You might lie when you tell your boss a report will be on his/her desk at 8 AM tomorrow. When that time arrives , and no report materializes, you will not continue to say that the report is on his desk.

But Trump, unlike any other politician, really does deny established facts, long after they have been proven to be facts. He claimed he had the largest support on the mall during inauguration, when easily available public records indicated that was not so.

He claimed that he won a large majority of popular votes, when millions that were not counted were included. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support this.

He claimed Obama wire-tapped his office. No evidence.

He claimed that he didn't know David Duke, even after video of his describing such a meeting emerged.

I could go on and on and on. Most politicians lie or embellish the truth when it's self-serving and when they can't at the time be proven to be lying. Trump continues to lie long after anyone with half a brain can see that the emperor has no clothes. His supporters give him a pass on this (and like you, push the kindergarten argument "he did it too!"), because like most people who are passionate about a politician, they are incapable of being even in the slightest degree objective or honest. Twenty years ago Lindsey Graham lectured us on how Bill Clinton's morals rose to the standard of impeachment. That Clinton's extra marital affairs had no effect whatsoever on his ability to govern, and don't come even remotely close to what Trump was doing on the phone to Ukraine, Graham passes over completely. Why? Because supporting Trump is more important to Graham than being consistent or honest.
 
Last edited:
Neves you bring up many interesting points,some are not valid in the US. First, yes voting is important, a person's vote is important. But more significant than the outcome of the vote is representation. The DC folks have that expression, Taxation without representation.
An undocumented or tourist should anticipate decent roads from tolls and taxes paid at the pump. All should expect a level of safety on American streets from registration and other licensing fees. All those expectations are afforded to those paying taxes. So when a dirty, raping Mexican buys bread,tortillas or gasoline,he or she should expect something for their tax input. That's regardless of if they can vote.
One of the single biggest fvck, ups Trump has done is look at the country for good or bad according to him. Baltimore is his shith0le, los Angeles and El Paso..yep both his. The entire country only has one President. That elected leader is supposed to do what's best for everyone, not just white people in states that support him. His insults are back at him. He is supposed to help San Francisco and New York City..big picture not micro movement for a super tiny group of supporters. Trump is completely honest about a few things,race and class for starters, his words and actions have told more than half the country,I don't like you,you are not important, and foremost not only will I not represent you but I will try and harm you because of my feelings.
Trump is supposed to be representing everyone, he is a complete failure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS