What's new
By:
Filters

Donald is about to go through some things...

Gameface said:
done
Click to expand...
Good.

Complaining about paywalls is the dumbest complaint ever. On one hand, we complain about the state of news today. We complain about how disinformation runs rampant on social media because it’s free and there are no gatekeepers. Yet, then we complain when journalism requires a small fee to pay for journalism, publishers, and fact checking.

It’s just a sign of being an immature cheap *** when complaining about paywalls. Even before the internet you needed to pay a few cents for journalism. Why do people bitch about it now?
 
The Thriller said:
Good.

Complaining about paywalls is the dumbest complaint ever. On one hand, we complain about the state of news today. We complain about how disinformation runs rampant on social media because it’s free and there are no gatekeepers. Yet, then we complain when journalism requires a small fee to pay for journalism, publishers, and fact checking.

It’s just a sign of being an immature cheap *** when complaining about paywalls. Even before the internet you needed to pay a few cents for journalism. Why do people bitch about it now?
Click to expand...
Eh, I subscribe and donate where I get most of my news (regular monthly donations to NPR, for example). But I'm not subscribing to every random news site on the Internet to read the occasional article someone might link to on a web forum. I think you can link to it but posting a short synopsis or snippet is polite instead of expecting everyone to subscribe to 30 different news outlets for one article now and then.
 
Gameface said:
done

EDIT: but it is generally nice to add something to a post besides a link, like a short summary of what you're linking to but whatever I don't care what you do. Post 100 twitter links in a row without any content of your own to your hearts content.
Click to expand...
Oh Lordy. I’m responding because you edited your OP.

I’m blasted when I add commentary and then blasted when I provide a link to an article. I just can’t win. This is what I mean by interactions with you have become increasingly dumber and hostile. I provided a resource for others to read and comment on. Had I commented, I’d be blasted for always being negative on Trump and/or Republicans. I’d be criticized for fainting the discussion rather than letting others read and come to their own conclusions.

Just bite the bullet and pay for journalism if you want to learn something more than the headline. Stop your bitching.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
Eh, I subscribe and donate where I get most of my news (regular monthly donations to NPR, for example). But I'm not subscribing to every random news site on the Internet to read the occasional article someone might link to on a web forum. I think you can link to it but posting a short synopsis or snippet is polite instead of expecting everyone to subscribe to 30 different news outlets for one article now and then.
Click to expand...
You’re gaslighting here. The articles that most of us here post that are under paywalls are typically from The NY Times and Wash Post. Many people have subscriptions to these outlets either through personal or school/work-related subscriptions. The Wash Post typically provides 3 free articles a month. There just isn’t a wide variety of paywall media providers (30 different providers) posted in this forum. Furthermore, he could’ve asked for a summary or stated that he faced a paywall. Instead, he escalated it by being an ***. Why couldn’t he have been polite?

Which surprises me because I’ve generally enjoyed his posting. But recently he’s been increasingly hostile. Not sure why?
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
You’re gaslighting here. The articles that most of us here post that are under paywalls are typically from The NY Times and Wash Post. Many people have subscriptions to these outlets either through personal or school/work-related subscriptions. The Wash Post typically provides 3 free articles a month. There just isn’t a wide variety of paywall media providers (30 different providers) posted in this forum. Furthermore, he could’ve asked for a summary or stated that he faced a paywall. Instead, he escalated it by being an ***. Why couldn’t he have been polite?

Which surprises me because I’ve generally enjoyed his posting. But recently he’s been increasingly hostile. Not sure why?
Click to expand...
Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.

Also it doesn't matter what you think is reasonable for what news sites to support. That's just like, your opinion man. Just because you think those sites are just fine to work with not all of us think the same way. And that's fine. The crux of my post was that it is polite to post a snippet or synopsis of an article you we can get the gist and then decide if we want to read the whole thing, or even Google for a different source. I do that regularly. That was all I was saying.

I wasn't commenting on GF's behavior. We all have different thresholds for shenanigans, and different definitions of shenanigans. Sounds like he reached his limit there.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd be interested to see how he thinks it applies.

I normally enjoy @The Thriller , I think his posts are generally informative and/or entertaining. Maybe a bit more combatative than I am, but we're different people. This bit is just kind of off base in a way that's surprising.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Do you know what gaslighting means? Please Google it and modify your comment accordingly.

Also it doesn't matter what you think is reasonable for what news sites to support. That's just like, your opinion man. Just because you think those sites are just fine to work with not all of us think the same way. And that's fine. The crux of my post was that it is polite to post a snippet or synopsis of an article you we can get the gist and then decide if we want to read the whole thing, or even Google for a different source. I do that regularly. That was all I was saying.

I wasn't commenting on GF's behavior. We all have different thresholds for shenanigans, and different definitions of shenanigans. Sounds like he reached his limit there.
Click to expand...
And GF could’ve asked in a polite and respectful manner. Instead, he acted like an ***.

And he reached his threshold? Maybe I get tired of people acting antagonistic towards me. Most of the RW trolls on this site target me. I don’t need GF having a bad weekend’s **** too. He could’ve made such a simple request in a respectful manner.
 
Red said:
As a subscriber, I get 10 articles per month that I can gift without a paywall…

Click to expand...
Thanks red.

And here is a snippet that kind of sums the thing up...good article though.

“The financial links between the Saudi royal family and the Trump family raise very serious issues,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and for several years has been investigating various ties between the Saudis, Trump and Kushner, “and when you factor in Jared Kushner’s financial interests, you are looking right at the cat’s cradle of financial entanglements.”
Click to expand...

Those concerns come at a high-stakes moment in the fraught U.S.-Saudi relationship. The investments by the Saudis came as the U.S. State Department said in a 2021 report that there continued to be “significant human rights issues” in Saudi Arabia, citing “credible reports” of torture and executions for nonviolent offenses. President Biden, who has backed away from a campaign pledge to hold the kingdom to account for human rights abuses, clashed openly with Riyadh in the fall over cuts in oil production. Trump, if he is reelected, may be less likely to confront the Saudi regime in future crises due to his financial entanglements, experts say.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
What a sweetheart….



“In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
 
Red said:
What a sweetheart….



“In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
Click to expand...

“WHAT DO YOU think of firing squads?”

That’s the question Donald Trump repeatedly asked some close associates in the run-up to the 2024 presidential campaign, three people familiar with the situation tell Rolling Stone.

It’s not an idle inquiry: The former president, if re-elected, is still committed to expanding the use of the federal death penalty and bringing back banned methods of execution, the sources say. He has even, one of the sources recounts, mused about televising footage of executions, including showing condemned prisoners in the final moments of their lives.

Specifically, Trump has talked about bringing back death by firing squad, by hanging, and, according to two of the sources, possibly even by guillotine. He has also, sources say, discussed group executions. Trump has floated these ideas while discussing planned campaign rhetoric and policy desires, as well as his disdain for President Biden’s approach to crime.

In at least one instance late last year, according to the third source, who has direct knowledge of the matter, Trump privately mused about the possibility of creating a flashy, government-backed video-ad campaign that would accompany a federal revival of these execution methods. In Trump’s vision, these videos would include footage from these new executions, if not from the exact moments of death. “The [former] president believes this would help put the fear of God into violent criminals,” this source says. “He wanted to do some of these [things] when he was in office, but for whatever reasons didn’t have the chance.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like more stream of consciousness talking out his *** that Trump is known for. Someone in his "inner circle" heard it and decided it was noteworthy. No way he gets anywhere with that as part of his platform, and no one would seriously believe he would run on that. Sure there would be a certain group of people that would love to hear this kind of ****, but his team would know this is a non-starter to garner the votes needed to get into the next election.


I think we get a little far fetched when it comes to demonizing people we don't like, and even who are objectively pieces of ****. I mean the **** he really does is bad enough, we don't need to trump (see what I did there) up **** that was probably said in passing as part of a larger conversation, as the quote said "privately mused". I seriously doubt this will be part of his actual platform. I have had similar conversations with my friends, like hey you know what, public hangings for dudes who molest children would be a better deterrent than life in prison with 3 squares and all the drugs you can smuggle in. **** like that. But with human garbage like Trump we just take it to the extremes.

It falls in the same category as someone who sees a picture of Hitler standing next to a stroller eating a piece of candy and people freak out "see he stole that candy from that baby, the monster!!" The real stuff is monstrous enough without resorting to turning them into some supernatural boogey man.
 
I had been practically assured Matt Gaetz was going down for sex trafficking.

www.cnn.com

FIRST ON CNN: DOJ officially decides not to charge Matt Gaetz in sex-trafficking probe | CNN Politics

The Justice Department has informed lawyers for at least one witness that it will not bring charges against Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz after a years-long federal sex-trafficking investigation.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

DOJ is not perusing charges against him despite three cooperating witnesses who have all been charged with crimes of their own.
 
Hell yeah to public executions!!! Pedophiles, mass shooters, rapist, and the like. Make them a public embarrassment and watch the mass shooters think twice. Make an example out of these people. Me? I don't have an iota of compassion for these sick scumbags(especially pedophiles) but I understand why a certain party is against it. Gotta protect their interest.
 
Last edited:
And Gaetz has always gave me the Biden creep vibes not gonna lie. At least Gatez isn't in video sniffing underages girls. Still same vibes.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Sounds like more stream of consciousness talking out his *** that Trump is known for. Someone in his "inner circle" heard it and decided it was noteworthy. No way he gets anywhere with that as part of his platform, and no one would seriously believe he would run on that.
Click to expand...
No, he would not include expanded options for executions as part of any platform. I was just surprised that he still had a way of astonishing me. And Trump musing over guillotines and mass executions puts me at least on the borders of astonishment. Apparently, I thought better of Trump than I realized.
 
Mass executions... Lol more fear mongering conspiracies.

Why do Democrats never ever like ever have anything more than unanimous sources? Because they can lie and get its constituents to believe anything. I'll never understand Democrats lust for extremely vile criminals. I say get rid of them.

#teampublicexecutePedos
 
Last edited:
So... Let me get this straight. Hearsay from unnamed sources is now 100% factual but a video with a guys confessing certain opinions is fake? You cannot make this hypocrisy up.

I have been linkedin'ing for hours and searched far a wide who "annonymous sources" are but I don't think they exist. Can you guys prove that the "annonymous sources" exist? Let's not be flat out hypocrites here. If I have to prove a guy on video exist it's only fair that you prove your ghost exist. Who's more trustworthy? A guy on video with a name or a person who we have zero proof even exist.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
(Briefly posted this to the wrong thread)

I watched one of her longer interviews last night. She’s getting her 15 minutes, and can only help Trump I think…

abcnews.go.com

By speaking out, could foreperson in Georgia Trump probe undermine a future case?

The foreperson of the Georgia grand jury probing election interference by former President Trump has publicly telegraphed some of her panel's closely held findings.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qyEG7Wr7tY
Click to expand...

Personally I think if you all would shut up about Trump instead of cult over him, he'd go away. You can't though as you are literally addicted to him. You cultist are the ones that continually keep him in the spotlight when you psychotically obsess over him like you cultist do... Every... day... As I've already pointed out, the only people who talk about Trump are you cultist and it's literally non-stop. I think a good chunk of Republicans even want him to disappear but not you. You cultist need him. You crave him. You think about him literally every day. @Gameface
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top