I'll have what he's saying...

[miamited]

The 37 most mind-boggling lines from Donald Trump's Sunday coronavirus briefing - CNNPolitics

I know, I know. It's all fake journalism that they filmed on a sound stage in Arizona where they did the moon landing shots. But really?!!!

It's becoming so sad that all one can really do anymore is shrug and walk away from the presidential press conferences hoping that his end is nigh.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[redleghunter]

It is my hope that Plaquenil will cure more than COVID-19.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The 37 most mind-boggling lines from Donald Trump's Sunday coronavirus briefing - CNNPolitics

I know, I know. It's all fake journalism that they filmed on a sound stage in Arizona where they did the moon landing shots. But really?!!!

It's becoming so sad that all one can really do anymore is shrug and walk away from the presidential press conferences hoping that his end is nigh.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

It's sad that many don't see the gotcha in many of those questions. The press is like Mel Brooks' movies. They "just keep coming at you". -Movie critic on Mel Brooks movies.

 

[Hank77]

It's sad that many don't see the gotcha in many of those questions. The press is like Mel Brooks' movies. They "just keep coming at you". -Movie critic on Mel Brooks movies.

Well, Dr. Fauci does sound just like Mel Brooks.

 

[redleghunter]

It's sad that many don't see the gotcha in many of those questions. The press is like Mel Brooks' movies. They "just keep coming at you". -Movie critic on Mel Brooks movies.

All of this could have been prevented by not eating bats.

 

[miamited]

It's sad that many don't see the gotcha in many of those questions. The press is like Mel Brooks' movies. They "just keep coming at you". -Movie critic on Mel Brooks movies.

Hi OWG,

Of course everyone sees the 'gotcha'. That's not the point. The point is that his press conferences are just full of false statements and uninformed claims and those kinds of comments are just always going to be, "Well, you said so and so Mr. President. What did you mean by that?" He's the President of the United States, the most powerful nation on the face of the earth and people expect him to at least most of the time say things that are concise, intelligent and fairly well thought out. Statements that follow what most people, and certainly most experts, know to be the truth of a matter. But that isn't what happens and so yes, he's constantly barraged with, "Didn't you say at one time...."

Then this bright, intelligent person, who at least thinks he knows pretty much everything about everything and is so much smarter than you or I and has gut to prove it pulls out some fairly worthless claim of pain and sorrow, "Oh, that's such a nasty question." Come on people. Get real here. This is really what near half of the nation thinks is the best that we can do for a leader?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi OWG,

Of course everyone sees the 'gotcha'. That's not the point. The point is that his press conferences are just full of false statements and uninformed claims and those kinds of comments are just always going to be, "Well, you said so and so Mr. President. What did you mean by that?" He's the President of the United States, the most powerful nation on the face of the earth and people expect him to at least most of the time say things that are concise, intelligent and fairly well thought out. Statements that follow what most people, and certainly most experts, know to be the truth of a matter. But that isn't what happens and so yes, he's constantly barraged with, "Didn't you say at one time...."

Then this bright, intelligent person, who at least thinks he knows pretty much everything about everything and is so much smarter than you or I and has gut to prove it pulls out some fairly worthless claim of pain and sorrow, "Oh, that's such a nasty question." Come on people. Get real here. This is really what near half of the nation thinks is the best that we can do for a leader?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I think the press should take the high road and ignore statements that they know are false, or unimportant. When they say "the American people want to know what you meant" by thus and such they make fools of themselves. We can sort the truth from the hype and bs in Trumps statements. We don't need the press to waste everyone's time babysitting us.

 

[childeye 2]

I think he's dyslexic.

He seems to have trouble reading. When he stumbles, he ad libs to cover for his disability and this is partly why we get weird things coming out as he tries to recover. He probably developed this technique of covering up over his lifetime. It also would explain why he's always saying how smart he is. He's very sensitive about being seen as dumb.​

 

[Jamsie]

I think the press should take the high road and ignore statements that they know are false, or unimportant. When they say "the American people want to know what you meant" by thus and such they make fools of themselves. We can sort the truth from the hype and bs in Trumps statements. We don't need the press to waste everyone's time babysitting us.

Perhaps, yet there are often details that people aren't aware of to know whether true or false. For example - when trump claimed that the military would receive a 10% raise, and it would be the first one in a decade... why shouldn't people know the truth surrounding his never ending lies? Trump seems confused about military pay, claims troops received no raises for a decade

It would seem to me that the "fools" are those who continue to defend his "hype and bs"... why blame the press for doing there job?

 

[miamited]

I think the press should take the high road and ignore statements that they know are false, or unimportant. When they say "the American people want to know what you meant" by thus and such they make fools of themselves. We can sort the truth from the hype and bs in Trumps statements. We don't need the press to waste everyone's time babysitting us.

Hi OWG,

I think that's a sad place to be. Where a citizen of any nation thinks that words of their national leaders should just be ignored if they know they are false. I think that it's why there even is a freedom of the press and was the reason that such a concept was even included as a basic tenet of our newly established constitution in the 1700's. Of all the things that our founding fathers thought should be a long standing and constitutionally protected principle of our nation, they established freedom of the press.

I contend that their purpose in doing that was to ensure that there would always be group that could and would ask the 'how come' and 'why this' questions of our government. Put yourself in their shoes for a few moments and ask yourself, "I wonder why our forefathers thought it so darn important to put 'freedom of the press' as one of our constitutionally protected enterprises. I bet you won't find anywhere in the constitution that 'corporations have free reign to make money however they see fit' in there. Or, 'people shall not be allowed to jaywalk on public streets'. No. Those, I'm going to assume fairly wise and learned men who gathered to cobble together the basic structure of our government thought it important enough to constitutionally protect 'freedom of the press'.

I contend that the press was considered pretty much the same as it is today. People issuing reports on the goings on of government and the mistakes or good that national leaders were accomplishing. Certainly for the last 100 years the press has played the part of 'thorn in the side' of our national leaders. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Carter or President Clinton. I contend that our forefathers knew that, just as the press had been the occupation that was niggling the leaders of Europe in those days, a free press would ensure some public oversight of any work being done through and by our government.

So, I can appreciate what 'you think'. But I believe that if you stop and consider a press that isn't free to report such things, or, as you think, shouldn't print or ask such things out of some, what, respect(?), that you would circumvent exactly why our forefathers thought it a basic importance that we have a free press.

That's what I think. I think we've elected a dullard as our national leader and he could stop the press from making such reports by merely thinking before he speaks. Not rambling on like a dotard old grandfather making claims and stories that he appears to have just made up out of thin air. He could stop 80% of his bad press by not being such a bad person. But no, I don't agree that the press should just give him a free pass. They never have before and I think it would be a sad state of the nation if we ever got to that point.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The 37 most mind-boggling lines from Donald Trump's Sunday coronavirus briefing - CNNPolitics

I know, I know. It's all fake journalism that they filmed on a sound stage in Arizona where they did the moon landing shots. But really?!!!

It's becoming so sad that all one can really do anymore is shrug and walk away from the presidential press conferences hoping that his end is nigh.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Come on Ted CNN?
Seems they have proven to not be trustworthy and are losing viewers daily because of that.
M-Bob

 

[Jamsie]

Come on Ted CNN? Seems they have proven to not be trustworthy and are losing viewers daily because of that. M-Bob

Come on M-Bob trump? He has been proven to be not trustworthy and to be a habitual liar. Can you offer the false reporting from CNN, and then compare to trump's record?

 

[miamited]

Come on Ted CNN?
Seems they have proven to not be trustworthy and are losing viewers daily because of that.
M-Bob

Hi MM,

Well, I'll certainly allow that every news agency has had issues from time to time in their long times in business where a false claim was made or some intention turned out wrong. However, I don't then take such an event and use a 15" paint brush to swipe across the entire business because of such a thing. I don't know that CNN is losing viewers daily. Seems that's one of the logical fallacies that are often used by unscrupulous debaters. I think they call it the ad hominem fallacy. Where one merely points out that a position can't be true based on the source and not the merits of the actual position. Lawyers get away with using it all the time.

"Well, didn't you lie to us about having bacon with your eggs for breakfast this morning? So, how can we trust anything you say about the color of the murderers car?" The witness could actually be telling the truth about the color of the car. The fact that he misrepresented or lied about what he had for breakfast isn't really any sort of proof that another statement is true or not.

However, as regards this specific and particular article, everything that's in the report can be verified. The quotes given of the president's words are correct, according to what he actually said on the record. The rebuttal is also correct, as far as I've been able to research.

You see, I try not to be the kind of person that just throws out everything because of one or a few errors. I take each claim and stand it up on it's own and test it. So, the fact that yes, CNN has been losing viewership doesn't mean that they are doing bad reporting. They may not have as much glitz and glamour, or their reporters may not be the darlings of the industry. Americans are fickle. There are more and more options out there for news every now and then and such a phenomenon generally means that some viewership will be lost. It's the Walmart principle. Bring in something that people perceive as better and you rob customers from other businesses. But, whether or not the new business is actually better in all respects, can be debated.

So, while I'm perfectly willing to consider that CNN is losing viewership, that's not my basis for determining if any singular and specific report found in their news is true or not. Are you denying that the president said the things that report tells us he said? Or, are you denying that there's any truth in the explanations being used to rebut what the president said? Which part of the article itself isn't true, in your understanding?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[childeye 2]

I think the press should take the high road and ignore statements that they know are false, or unimportant. When they say "the American people want to know what you meant" by thus and such they make fools of themselves. We can sort the truth from the hype and bs in Trumps statements. We don't need the press to waste everyone's time babysitting us.

I strongly disagree. In fact I find it B.S. or hype that the press is babysitting us simply because they seek to report the Truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I strongly disagree. In fact I find it B.S. or hype that the press is babysitting us simply because they seek to report the Truth.

The press publishes information not truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi OWG,

I think that's a sad place to be. Where a citizen of any nation thinks that words of their national leaders should just be ignored if they know they are false. I think that it's why there even is a freedom of the press and was the reason that such a concept was even included as a basic tenet of our newly established constitution in the 1700's. Of all the things that our founding fathers thought should be a long standing and constitutionally protected principle of our nation, they established freedom of the press.

I contend that their purpose in doing that was to ensure that there would always be group that could and would ask the 'how come' and 'why this' questions of our government. Put yourself in their shoes for a few moments and ask yourself, "I wonder why our forefathers thought it so darn important to put 'freedom of the press' as one of our constitutionally protected enterprises. I bet you won't find anywhere in the constitution that 'corporations have free reign to make money however they see fit' in there. Or, 'people shall not be allowed to jaywalk on public streets'. No. Those, I'm going to assume fairly wise and learned men who gathered to cobble together the basic structure of our government thought it important enough to constitutionally protect 'freedom of the press'.

I contend that the press was considered pretty much the same as it is today. People issuing reports on the goings on of government and the mistakes or good that national leaders were accomplishing. Certainly for the last 100 years the press has played the part of 'thorn in the side' of our national leaders. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Carter or President Clinton. I contend that our forefathers knew that, just as the press had been the occupation that was niggling the leaders of Europe in those days, a free press would ensure some public oversight of any work being done through and by our government.

So, I can appreciate what 'you think'. But I believe that if you stop and consider a press that isn't free to report such things, or, as you think, shouldn't print or ask such things out of some, what, respect(?), that you would circumvent exactly why our forefathers thought it a basic importance that we have a free press.

That's what I think. I think we've elected a dullard as our national leader and he could stop the press from making such reports by merely thinking before he speaks. Not rambling on like a dotard old grandfather making claims and stories that he appears to have just made up out of thin air. He could stop 80% of his bad press by not being such a bad person. But no, I don't agree that the press should just give him a free pass. They never have before and I think it would be a sad state of the nation if we ever got to that point.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

You better get used to it. You're going to be hearing it for four and a half more years.

 

[miamited]

You better get used to it. You're going to be hearing it for four and a half more years.

Hi OWG,

Oh, I may. However, based on a lot of the complaints on these threads about the media attacks on our tweeter in chief, I'm not so confident that it's myself that needs to get used to it. If this blowhard, narcissistic orange clown gets elected for another four years, perhaps 'they' better get used to it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi OWG,

Oh, I may. However, based on a lot of the complaints on these threads about the media attacks on our tweeter in chief, I'm not so confident that it's myself that needs to get used to it. If this blowhard, narcissistic orange clown gets elected for another four years, perhaps 'they' better get used to it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

He was without the orange makeup in recent days (a sign of things to come?).

 

[miamited]

He was without the orange makeup in recent days (a sign of things to come?).

Ho OWG,

That's funny.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[childeye 2]

The press publishes information not truth.

Let's get our terms straight. Knowledge and ignorance get their meanings in relation to what is true. Ignorance is the state of being uninformed or uneducated about what is true. Hence information can only mean, that which informs the uninformed of what is true. Therefore the job of the press is to to report the truth by informing people of what is true as accurately as possible.

But perhaps you mean to suggest that the press can report misinformation. Misinformation is faulty information in it's accuracy of what is true. When a news outlet presents misinformation it is a mistake which corrupts the quality of the reporting. And when a news outlet deliberately provides faulty information it's called disinformation.