I know. They actually think he has mental issues and truly believe he has no idea what he's doing.

You prove my point.

I hadnt heard anything about this. so I googled.

I found this: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/u...ve-editor.html

but I dont see any apology here.

where is it?

where?

oh wait, you heard from trump that the ny times apologized. some other right wing sources proly reported as such. those were lies.

that is what the right does. they lie. it works bc of bias and years of previous brainwashing and ppls inability to use critical thinking.

dude that post has no point. it is literal gibberish. it makes no sense. it goes in circles. it has no consistent cause and effect. it draws no logical conclusions. I am just shocked that someones brain could come up with something so...like...I dunno...its like repeated non sequitors. thats all I can come up with.

it does not follow.

I'm just calling it like I see it and telling it like it is.

For example, I'm not included with any "you people" as referenced. That is just how it is. I decide my people, not any other.

Lol. This is one of the worst posts I've ever read. Ever.

Good job, you made me laugh today.

wheres the apology wil?

The dude literally said he didn't know healthcare could be so complicated today. There is no 4d chess. He'd lose to your 5 year old nephew in tic tac toe.

Also, the NYT never apologized to Trump. Literally everybody who gets their news from sources beyond alt right/trumps own twitter feed know this.

Let's see Wil apologize for lying, yet again.

Here is the letter in full, so we can't let Wil back out of another lie:

It's a shame, then, that someone can spell something out to you and you can't see it.

Someone disagrees with you, and says that the media are 'indispensable to democracy' because 'power is addictive and can be corrosive' and the media 'need to hold people like me to account'. He says 'people like me' because he is a former President of the United States.

He says he spent much of his time in office trying to tell someone called Vladimir Putin that a free press is vital, and he says that's a difficult line to maintain if you don't recognise freedom of the press in your own country.

He also says 'We all need answers' about Trump's links with Putin, and that he would support the appointment of a special prosecutor by the relevant Senate committee.

http://www.today.com/news/george-w-b...travel-t108627

Mind you, Trump's links with Robert Mercer need just as much investigation.

Wil, I posted the entire full page letter. Please, show me the part that includes the apology.

Again, his messages are not for you. They're for the people who vote and cheer him on. He's learned their language pretty well.

This is false for these two simple reasons:
He campaigned on repealing the ACA
The ACA has a popularity of +15% vs DJT (~38% vs 52% as of pew this week).

This would only make sense if he was doing something popular among his supporters (it's not), or that it wasn't a promise that him and his party are intent on carrying out.

I'm unsure what people think the word "rededicate" means. The editor of the NYT issued a memo to the writers reminding them to be impartial.

I mean, if you insist that it wasn't an "apology", you can go right ahead, but the NYT did that in response to the backlash they received from their own readers. Lol, you are welcome to call it whatever you want. Sounds like an apology to me, though.

Lol

Like he excludes himself from being The People's president with his message being suited only to some people.

Wil, what is the difference between the NYT taking out a page to reassert their mission statement and the WaPo putting forth a new slogan?

Neither one is close to an apology. This wasn't in response to complaints (their subscriptions went up by a few million), either. Maybe you could cite that this was done as a result of backlash?

Speaking of exclusion, I heard that Fox News was the only major TV media to exclude mention of Russia on their Sunday shows. One way wonder if this apparent exclusion was at any State's suggestion, request, or demand?

And one of the problems with the internet, which both you and goofyballer beautifully demonstrate, is how it can drown you in the pool of echo chambers and confirmation bias. Especially since these days, search engines, social media and browsers are programmed to use data analytics to not feed you neutral content, but rather to tell you what you want to hear and either shield you from opposing points of view, or present laughable caricatures of such.

Because for each of those links that you post, I can also equally post something like this:



Or the following:

http://ijr.com/2017/02/810965-trump-...e-is-watching/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...t_with_donald/

http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...urch/89768582/

The point is not to say which is correct, the point is to show that there may be many facets that you may not have considered, and perhaps ought to consider before labeling a whole swath of people as Nazis and racists. This can happen even based off the same set of facts.

If your ability to research is so good and you are so sure of yourself now, how much did you make betting on the election? Did you beat Nate Silver's closing line of +234/-234 for Trump/Clinton? How can you be so sure that you are not continuing down the same path that led many others to FOAD when Trump won? Because based on my experience in handicapping elections, if you really thought that the Al Smith dinner was one of the worst public performances in history, then you did not have the understanding of the circumstances that you thought you did, and were exactly the ideal pigeon that I was trying to fade during the elections.

Why is the expectation for 'nazism' and racism to go and remain unidentified?

Is it a confirmation bias towards denying and ignoring 'nazism' and racism which has been presupposed not to exist or happen?

Wait, System can't remember how badly DJT handled the black church and how he was eviscerated for that?

His other cite is anonymous reddit posts? Yikes.

I mean, even Bill Maher confirmed it this week on his show.

It's just weird how intentionally ignorant you people are. You are provided with evidence or explanations and you just "nope nope nope" it away. It's bizarre. Even when a wager is made, or a prediction is given and comes true, it turns into some weird excuse of luck.

Observing you people is better than taking a psychology course. At what point will you start realizing that you're wrong about anything at all?

There is so much racism associated with donald, it would take teams of gaslighters and at least one cable news channel to blast doubt into people's minds about it.

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issu...er&tversky.htm

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

Now, here are some research studies from people in the psychological field, who have devoted their life to debunking this very sentence. Observations for most people are unreliable. Never mind someone who isn't very intelligent, isn't well read and cannot discern a well researched study from a PhD from an anonymous internet post.

As usual, lol Wil.

Immediately missing the point and proving my point at the same time. Hilarious.

aoFrantic: One of your favorite tactics appears to be attacks on source credibility regardless of what it is being used for. In particular, you seem to value Breitbart as being worse than worthless. Why? Is it good practice for a politics handicapper to discard what is posted on Breitbart, HuffPro, Jezebel, OccupyDemocrats, Reddit, Facebook comments and so on? Why or why not?

System, people think breitbart is bad because it's a self identified white nationalist site that makes up stories, and the stories that are true are told with a white nationalist slant. That shouldn't be too hard to understand, no? I don't think I'm going out on a limb to attack the credibility of a "news site" with headlines like:

In their "reporting" of the Quebec mosque shooting, they mention witness Mohammed Khadir (ooooh scary brown name), who had no part in the shooting more times than shooter Alexander Bissonette (20 something white kid). Now, is this responsible journalism iyo?

I only "attack the source" when the source is bad. Can you cite me some evidence of me attacking sources other than anonymous message board posts that were not corroborated, the radical christian website Wil posted or breitbart/stormfront/infowars?
Can you give me one time where I attacked a well researched article, when confronted with it? I generally only post research articles or from NYT/WaPo.

You posted a link saying DJT went to a black church as evidence he (???). He performed very poorly there. He was mocked relentlessly for it. Can you expand on the point you are trying to make by including that story?

I'm not asking you to take it on face value or even for the truth of what is asserted; rather treat it as a data point and weigh it accordingly. Seriously, you cannot think of any value that even something seemingly nonsensical as Breitbart, HuffPro and Jezebel could provide? Not even something like, gauging how many people agree with the emotional sentiment of the article, even though the facts might not necessarily be correct?

And there's an example.

Sure, he was mocked relentlessly for this and at first glance the reporting all indicated that it was bad. However, what was par for the black vote for the Republican candidate? Did Trump's outreach make Trump more likely or less likely to clear par? Did his message resonate/not resonate with black church goers or black conservatives? Did you watch the live stream of the event and pay attention to the reception of Trump's message from the audience and the pastors?

Remember, he did not have to do well with the black vote as how you would define it; he just had to clear par from the Republican's POV.