Also, he probably has super shitty news sources. It must get exhausting trying to separate wheat from a chaff firehose.
In general, probably not.
In this case, yes.
My point was that this was an unprompted decision to support something that Trump had said.
If someone says that Trump eats babies, then responding that, “No, he doesn’t.” isn’t any sort of association, it’s not supporting Trump, it’s just keeping the facts straight.
However, if someone just up and claims that Trump eats fewer babies than the Democrats do, then there is actual support going on there.
He has access to the same internet as you and I.
That is as stupid as saying, “We must have the same friends because we have the same world”.
Disagree.
The original comment was “he probably has super shitty news sources.”
While I will agree that he uses super shitty news sources, the point being made was that his access to good news sources is not mysteriously restricted. He has the same access as you and I.
What he does not have apparently is access to the same internal filters that help us differentiate between good and bad news sources.
That’s correct. His has no internal filters. Well put.
But the point is - he has access to the same internet as you and I. He just is too blinkered or dysfunctional or whatever to use it effectively.
So k9befriender was accurate as well.
I seriously don’t get how hard it is to just get news from Associated Press. You’re getting most of your news from them anyways even if you think it’s coming from fox, cnn etc. so you might as well just get it at the source and not have to wade through the bs everyone puts on top of it.
Indeed, along with reuters, the best news source, but it doesn’t come up in google article searches as nearly as often as other sources. Sometmes an article search will bring up maybe yahoo and one or two other sources that I’ve never heard of (but sound a little on the ‘patriotic’ side, or something) and I’m like - maybe I’ll hold off posting about it until AP or someone else credible finally reports it. (If, it all, which usually indicates - ok, nothingbooger/false, move on.)
On numerous occasions had to drag my lazy, wizened ass over to Google Page Number Two or heaven forfend, three, to hunt down the AP little rude plant.
This was my comment. I should have been more clear: He’s a gullible tool of the American right wing.
No, it’s more like saying, “He doesn’t have to be friends with Nazis, as there are plenty of people out there to be friends with that aren’t Nazis.”
Point is, it is his choice. If you live in China or North Korea, then you may not have access to unbiased news sources. All of the information at your disposal is intended to give you a skewed perspective on the world.
That is not the case with our man of the hour here. He chooses to consume media that gives him lies and misrepresentation. He could choose otherwise.
And then he chooses to come here which then implies… I mean… aw, fuuuuck!
This has been a tactic of later. Fascists do love to claim that it is their enemies the ones that are fascists, justifying then their need to be fascist with their “enemies”
Again, Sam is not a Nazi as (what I have seen) he has avoided any “scientific” racism discussions and has not adopted the racist nativist talking points AFAIK, but he continues to support leaders that cuddle those “real” Americans (Again, the very own wording from many in the right wing in the US, means to right wingers that Americans of color, immigrants that become American or white “Woke”** lovers of the minorities should not be allowed to vote.)
.
.
.
** IMHO the right wing is replacing the ugly old fashion epithets like “N**** Lover” with “Woke”. The meaning the right wingers are giving that word now is due to the extreme right wingers attempting to keep other “right” Americans (from their point of view) from joining any progressive moves in that front.
Thanks for that mental image. 
Sam, due in part to his tragic gullibility, has been a big time denier of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As recently as last October in this very thread he was spouting nonsense like…
He says this despite the fact that over 100 pages of the Mueller report are devoted to describing collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Now we have new information…
Now we know for a fact that the Russian intelligence effort to get Trump elected in 2016 was materially aided by Trump’s campaign chairman. Do you think this will change Sam’s mind? Of course not. He’s too emotionally invested in the bonkers idea that the, “Real collusion,” was between the Clinton campaign and Ukraine.
He’s a chicken fucking extremist, and all you can expect from a chicken fucking extremist is more chicken fucking. Lots more.
Won’t anyone speak up for the chickens?
Cluck, cluck, BAWK!?
You’re a good egg.
Colonel Sanders did nothing wrong!
In the Politics and Elections forum, poster Sherrerd had a nice summation that is good for any right wingers who apparently find the whole thing too complicated:
- Trump hires
- Manafort to run his campaign. Manafort then orders
- Gates , his deputy, to provide polling and strategy information to
- Kilimnik , their longtime colleague and, according to the Senate committee, a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik then shares that information with
- Russian intelligence agents .
Followed by:
Among the reasons that Mueller’s team couldn’t draw that line clearly in the first place was that Manafort misled investigators (spurring false-statement charges) and otherwise refused to offer a detailed assessment of his time on the campaign.
Two days before Christmas last year, Trump, by then a lame duck, granted Manafort a pardon.
This seems pretty clear and obvious.
Of course, the conclusions drawn by some posters will be that we should lock up Clinton for baby snatching.
Among the reasons that Mueller’s team couldn’t draw that line clearly in the first place was that Manafort misled investigators (spurring false-statement charges) and otherwise refused to offer a detailed assessment of his time on the campaign.
This is the kind of thing that Sam has tried to minimize over and over again by calling them process crimes. “Mueller found no crimes related to collusion, only process crimes,” and the like.
Process crimes are crimes, and these particular process crimes were lying to the FBI to cover up collusion. Collusion that indisputably took place.