I honestly don't care what republicans do. I am not a republican. Right now, the anti-speech party, imo, is the left party so I stand against them. When the republicans inevitably start doing the same shit, guess where I will be.
Everyone has their reason to vote or not vote a particular way. That was one sentiment I saw more than once. Aside from that, you have the same "standard armchair QB analysis".
One of Cruz's strategy was to win by delegates which if you Remember made Trump angry and Cruz was successful in a few Caucus states. Whether it was to influence the platform or to secure the victory without the votes the futility is the same in part because of the rule change. Initially, before Trump had cemented his leader status as the presumptive nominee he was the only candidate to win majority in enough states making Cruz's delegate strategy nearly pointless because of the rule change even if Cruz was able to pull off enough Caucus victories.
If the Republican party didn't want someone like that as their nominee, then they shouldn't have spent the previous 8 years training their voters to respond to his kind of nonsense. You reap what you sew.
If you wanted to a throw a political hand-grenade into Washington, who was the best candidate to do that in the both party primaries? I don't think you understand that people wanted something different and when Trump won there was hope for things to be different. Rationality takes the back burner to emotion particularly strong emotions like anger.
A lot of the "immediacy" has been set by Obama to drone civilians i.e. not a lot. Are we at war? Where are we at war and who with? How do you ban people we are at war with that fight for a religious ideology who do not uniform their soldiers? How do ensure that the recruitment of that group does not reach any prospective refugee, immigrant, citizen?
Honestly, I am glad it's in the courts but that doesn't mean I have to like the arguments but because the temporary nature I don't see an issue given the complexity of the problem.
Expecting 3rd world service from Taiwan shows you didn't know much about Taiwan or the people before you visited. Unless it was 30 years ago.
Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work
I am no more a Republican than I am a Democrat. It is pretty obvious why it doesn't work as well in the US than compared to Taiwan and it's cultural and institutional reasons. Cultural because the US has a very strong sense of individualism compared to Taiwan. In Taiwan, it is much easier to pass top down things like that because of that culture. Institutional because of the semi-sovereign states with their own laws that make insurance and other bureaucratic health laws messy.
You know how you get universal healthcare in the US? Start in the states and prove to the nation your framework works (you know, experiments of democracy and all). That way, the Federal initiative standardizes everything. If you really want to convince enough people to get a true universal healthcare start bottom up not top down. If blue states want universal healthcare, why can't their states do it? Why does it have to be federal? They can do it. Nothing is stopping them.
I don't care what democrats or republicans see the other side as. In the main of what you say, republicans are for the individual while demarcates are for the group. You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual. Also, I have this opinion because that is the interaction I got from each party when I participated in each party.In the GOP for 2008/2012 for RP and in 2016 with the democrats for 2016 for Sanders. The GOP, didn't have the same arrogance or condescension. Sure, the old guard didn't like Ron Paul but not to the point to say "we don't need you or your vote" like what I experienced in 2016. I haven't seen any study that looks into the acceptance of diverse opinions between the group. Do you have a link?
the other is battling for groups of people.
Ever see what a black conservative is called in democrat circles? They are for groups of people so long as those groups toe the party line. Same treatment for gay conservatives. They don't want different thoughts and they chastise anyone from any group accordingly. I have seen this many times over.
an ideology
If the ideology is based on individualism. I am for it too. I don't care what group you belong to because the individual is the ultimate minority to be protected.
Yes, it is good that they are under judicial review but my contention is the arguments that amount to; "prove this is not a racist order". Hard to prove a negative. It also makes the argument that "cannot discriminate based on national origin" is an enforceable foreign policy when by definition any foreign policy is discriminatory policy based on national origin. Or should we not have different policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government? It is easy when it is easily defined like the USSR but difficult when it is based on ideology and terrorism. Can the executive determine places of inordinate danger to the US and US citizens and bar entry temporarily or increase screening procedures?
Yes, the Executive cannot ban based on religion but the order does not do that nor does it state a religion. If it did you would think other nations would be part of that, not only ones that are failed governments, mired in civil war, and hot bets of terrorist ideology and recruitment that was named by the prior administration. The WH is arguing that the order should be judged by the extent of the order and the text that it is written which I agree. Sure, using the rhetoric on the campaign trail can, in some instances, give context to the order but that should not be the soul basis of constitutionality.
If SCOTUS takes it up, they will be arguing whether the order should be judged by the text alone or in addition to campaign rhetoric and whether a nation with a lot of terrorism (recruitment, activity, and organization) is sufficient danger to the US to bar entry temporarily.
you can't pass crap like those bans
Does the Executive control immigration to the extent of the law? Can the Executive bar immigration or travel if the place and people are determined to be a threat to the US? If not, then what is the point of a border? It isn't the same as the USSR and that is why it is a difficult thing. Was it unconstitutional to discriminate the national origin of Russians during the Cold War?
Yes, I can blame them. I have more respect for the GOP because they are not so "pure" on their ideology to the point of shunning and chastising those that don't fall in line.
They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
lol, fat load of good that did. Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere. Governor seats, House, Senate, Executive. Name it and they probably have been losing it.
Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the court
I don't understand this nor the reason it was modded up. As opposed to the courts not blocking orders from the president? We have seen that and that is why we have the first year filled with E.O.'s.
Also, the arguments why he can't have his ban are specious at best. The only way the courts would allow them is if the executive prove a negative. "Prove it isn't racist!". Instead of taking the order as is and within the confines of the text to the extent that it would be enforced, the courts use campaign rhetoric that may or may not have influenced this order. But they don't have to prove it Trump has to prove it isn't racist.
Prove you are not racist and want strong immigration enforcement.
In 2008, people were laughing at Paul, yes. In 2012, the GOP was moving to where Paul was on many issues. He was a threat with his ideas to the point that the GOP changed the primary rules so that only candidates that won majorities in X number of states can win the nomination. That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change. He was playing the delegate game to change the platform and considering his success (ideologically speaking) since 2008 the GOP was scared (not only of Paul but the Tea party). Very similar story to Sanders. Old consistent party member (that only joined that party recently) with a clear, concise, and ideologically pure message winning the youth vote of the party threatening the old guard.
It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
For example, compare GOP 2008/2012 Ron Paul with Democrat Sanders in 2016. Both establishment parties hated Paul/Sanders but only one party was arrogant enough to say "we don't need your vote".
So if you decide to behave against others, they have every right to eliminate you as a threat to their universe.
Yes, the rules of nature or effectively nihilism.
Right now, thats what we do in wasting time with conflicts
Yes. Yes. Are you a Big Endian or Little Endian. If you have a solution to end conflict beyond flowery words that historically have deprived the rights of the individual, lets hear it.
He posits that we instead look at the bigger picture and realize we should enjoy our universe and work together to make it better.
Yes, and I will act in my self interest to better 'my universe'. I can act in a way that limits my behavior to be considerate of the environment but if we are all connected, as it were, then the environment is a vessel for my self interest, isn't it? Nothing I or any human can do will make a difference in this world so why limit inhibit your behavior for a ethereal sense of self and reality?
There was no implication of collusion in the title or article - That's YOUR construction.
No, that was what I gathered from Comey and Risch conversation. Emphasis added. here is my initial comment: " one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians." here is transcript. Is your contention I said "Trump" instead of "Trump campaign"? Oh my. you got me.
RISCH:... OK.
On — I remember, you — you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. You remember reading that article when it first came out?
COMEY: I do. It was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance...
RISCH: Correct.
(CROSSTALK)
COMEY:... communications. Yes, sir.
RISCH: And — and that upset you to the point where you actually went out and surveyed the intelligence community to see whether — whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct?
COMEY: That’s correct. I want to be careful in open setting. But...
RISCH: I — I’m — I’m not going to any further than that with it.
COMEY: OK.
RISCH: So thank you.
In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the — this is not factual. Do you recall that?
COMEY: Yes.
RISCH: OK. So — so, again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?COMEY: In — in the main, it was not true. And, again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t. The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is that people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on.
And those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there.
I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th statement. Nonsense, but I can’t go explaining how it’s nonsense.
heh. One thing I find funny is Fox's use of all caps. I did a compare of each site just to see what was different and context to understand your post.
Fox headline: TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes
CNN headline: 'Ill testify under oath, Trump says
Nothing screams authentic news source like an all caps headline. I AM AUTHORITATIVE NEWS SOURCE AND CERTAINLY NOT CLICK BAIT AT ALL. Also learn how to buy Viagra at half the price!
Leading into 2. Humans have no more significance than anything else, including atoms, cells, etc...
I'm probably a bit overly sensitive, but this self depreciation has been played pretty hard by social engineers over the last couple decades.
This. It's like a flowery version of nihilism. If humans are not any more significant or important than anything else why would a human idea of morality be important or significant for humans?
So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok. The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. That is disingenuous to me and the article that was discussed by Comey and Risch are of a similar narrative crafting. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism. CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them. Ethics and standards for journalism has been left behind such as the Goldwater rule. It isn't hard to find examples of a lack in ethics for journalists if you spend a few minutes looking. https://www.psychologytoday.co... http://www.independent.co.uk/n... character assassination from the WSJ is a thing beyond Trump. https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...
What about anonymous unverifiable sources, how much should we rely on them for the truth?
Sure, they are not perfect but I also understand that it is standard practice to not let emotions get in the way of honest reporting (one reason why you don't interview a loved one), Yet, for Trump that is different because hatred doesn't cloud the judgement or reporting, apparently. There are too many examples I could list. You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.
Honestly, If you don't see the crap that MSM have been doing then I don't know what to make of you other than you agree with their bias and lack of ethics and standards.
I don't care what Trump says or what foot he presents to media. Does Trump lie? Why would you believe him now for that? Trump lies except for when it suits you?
To me, it doesn't make sense at all. I don't think it makes sense to very many people but, like you, are quick to apply motive. Why would firing the head of the FBI in ANY way stop an FBI investigation?
Yes, Comey "had a gut feeling" but he didn't know if it was and wanted it to be known so others can make that decision.
Was there malicious intent? From what I have seen and heard I don't think there was. If there was, you would think there would be other actions that POTUS would take to undermine the investigation.
You are applying malice and intent when there is no evidence for any.
The first link was the first search result because I am lazy. Why do you trust Snopes? You trust CNN that even by your standards with "selective omission" yet say I am full of shit because... ? You may not like the example and reason for why I think MSM present misinformation to attack Trump is good enough but you don't have much to go off from other than "look at this other opinion", "I trust CNN and MSM".
Sure thing. To each their own but for me the well has been poisoned so I don't hold much stock in the water. I see too many examples every day and I am too lazy to search it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Example from the left: antifa, BAMN, 3rd wave feminism.
When I see censorship I am against it, I don't care the party.
I honestly don't care what republicans do. I am not a republican. Right now, the anti-speech party, imo, is the left party so I stand against them. When the republicans inevitably start doing the same shit, guess where I will be.
Everyone has their reason to vote or not vote a particular way. That was one sentiment I saw more than once. Aside from that, you have the same "standard armchair QB analysis".
One of Cruz's strategy was to win by delegates which if you Remember made Trump angry and Cruz was successful in a few Caucus states. Whether it was to influence the platform or to secure the victory without the votes the futility is the same in part because of the rule change. Initially, before Trump had cemented his leader status as the presumptive nominee he was the only candidate to win majority in enough states making Cruz's delegate strategy nearly pointless because of the rule change even if Cruz was able to pull off enough Caucus victories.
If the Republican party didn't want someone like that as their nominee, then they shouldn't have spent the previous 8 years training their voters to respond to his kind of nonsense. You reap what you sew.
If you wanted to a throw a political hand-grenade into Washington, who was the best candidate to do that in the both party primaries? I don't think you understand that people wanted something different and when Trump won there was hope for things to be different. Rationality takes the back burner to emotion particularly strong emotions like anger.
A lot of the "immediacy" has been set by Obama to drone civilians i.e. not a lot. Are we at war? Where are we at war and who with? How do you ban people we are at war with that fight for a religious ideology who do not uniform their soldiers? How do ensure that the recruitment of that group does not reach any prospective refugee, immigrant, citizen?
Honestly, I am glad it's in the courts but that doesn't mean I have to like the arguments but because the temporary nature I don't see an issue given the complexity of the problem.
Expecting 3rd world service from Taiwan shows you didn't know much about Taiwan or the people before you visited. Unless it was 30 years ago.
Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work
I am no more a Republican than I am a Democrat. It is pretty obvious why it doesn't work as well in the US than compared to Taiwan and it's cultural and institutional reasons. Cultural because the US has a very strong sense of individualism compared to Taiwan. In Taiwan, it is much easier to pass top down things like that because of that culture. Institutional because of the semi-sovereign states with their own laws that make insurance and other bureaucratic health laws messy.
You know how you get universal healthcare in the US? Start in the states and prove to the nation your framework works (you know, experiments of democracy and all). That way, the Federal initiative standardizes everything. If you really want to convince enough people to get a true universal healthcare start bottom up not top down. If blue states want universal healthcare, why can't their states do it? Why does it have to be federal? They can do it. Nothing is stopping them.
That bit about taxes is your straw-man.
I don't care what democrats or republicans see the other side as. In the main of what you say, republicans are for the individual while demarcates are for the group. You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual. Also, I have this opinion because that is the interaction I got from each party when I participated in each party.In the GOP for 2008/2012 for RP and in 2016 with the democrats for 2016 for Sanders. The GOP, didn't have the same arrogance or condescension. Sure, the old guard didn't like Ron Paul but not to the point to say "we don't need you or your vote" like what I experienced in 2016. I haven't seen any study that looks into the acceptance of diverse opinions between the group. Do you have a link?
the other is battling for groups of people.
Ever see what a black conservative is called in democrat circles? They are for groups of people so long as those groups toe the party line. Same treatment for gay conservatives. They don't want different thoughts and they chastise anyone from any group accordingly. I have seen this many times over.
an ideology
If the ideology is based on individualism. I am for it too. I don't care what group you belong to because the individual is the ultimate minority to be protected.
Yes, it is good that they are under judicial review but my contention is the arguments that amount to; "prove this is not a racist order". Hard to prove a negative. It also makes the argument that "cannot discriminate based on national origin" is an enforceable foreign policy when by definition any foreign policy is discriminatory policy based on national origin. Or should we not have different policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government? It is easy when it is easily defined like the USSR but difficult when it is based on ideology and terrorism. Can the executive determine places of inordinate danger to the US and US citizens and bar entry temporarily or increase screening procedures?
Yes, the Executive cannot ban based on religion but the order does not do that nor does it state a religion. If it did you would think other nations would be part of that, not only ones that are failed governments, mired in civil war, and hot bets of terrorist ideology and recruitment that was named by the prior administration. The WH is arguing that the order should be judged by the extent of the order and the text that it is written which I agree. Sure, using the rhetoric on the campaign trail can, in some instances, give context to the order but that should not be the soul basis of constitutionality.
If SCOTUS takes it up, they will be arguing whether the order should be judged by the text alone or in addition to campaign rhetoric and whether a nation with a lot of terrorism (recruitment, activity, and organization) is sufficient danger to the US to bar entry temporarily.
you can't pass crap like those bans
Does the Executive control immigration to the extent of the law? Can the Executive bar immigration or travel if the place and people are determined to be a threat to the US? If not, then what is the point of a border? It isn't the same as the USSR and that is why it is a difficult thing. Was it unconstitutional to discriminate the national origin of Russians during the Cold War?
Yes, I can blame them. I have more respect for the GOP because they are not so "pure" on their ideology to the point of shunning and chastising those that don't fall in line.
They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
lol, fat load of good that did. Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere. Governor seats, House, Senate, Executive. Name it and they probably have been losing it.
Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the court
I don't understand this nor the reason it was modded up. As opposed to the courts not blocking orders from the president? We have seen that and that is why we have the first year filled with E.O.'s.
Also, the arguments why he can't have his ban are specious at best. The only way the courts would allow them is if the executive prove a negative. "Prove it isn't racist!". Instead of taking the order as is and within the confines of the text to the extent that it would be enforced, the courts use campaign rhetoric that may or may not have influenced this order. But they don't have to prove it Trump has to prove it isn't racist.
Prove you are not racist and want strong immigration enforcement.
In 2008, people were laughing at Paul, yes. In 2012, the GOP was moving to where Paul was on many issues. He was a threat with his ideas to the point that the GOP changed the primary rules so that only candidates that won majorities in X number of states can win the nomination. That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change. He was playing the delegate game to change the platform and considering his success (ideologically speaking) since 2008 the GOP was scared (not only of Paul but the Tea party). Very similar story to Sanders. Old consistent party member (that only joined that party recently) with a clear, concise, and ideologically pure message winning the youth vote of the party threatening the old guard.
It's something of a sad state of affairs that news has become glorified Twitter readers.
It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
For example, compare GOP 2008/2012 Ron Paul with Democrat Sanders in 2016. Both establishment parties hated Paul/Sanders but only one party was arrogant enough to say "we don't need your vote".
Drugs. Lots of drugs.
It may not be the "Eureka" moment you are expecting but from my perspective I discovered the meaning of existence.
I don't know. In elementary school some kid threw a rock at my head. I am sure that rock was in pain since I remember it was bleeding.
So if you decide to behave against others, they have every right to eliminate you as a threat to their universe.
Yes, the rules of nature or effectively nihilism.
Right now, thats what we do in wasting time with conflicts
Yes. Yes. Are you a Big Endian or Little Endian. If you have a solution to end conflict beyond flowery words that historically have deprived the rights of the individual, lets hear it.
He posits that we instead look at the bigger picture and realize we should enjoy our universe and work together to make it better.
Yes, and I will act in my self interest to better 'my universe'. I can act in a way that limits my behavior to be considerate of the environment but if we are all connected, as it were, then the environment is a vessel for my self interest, isn't it? Nothing I or any human can do will make a difference in this world so why limit inhibit your behavior for a ethereal sense of self and reality?
There was no implication of collusion in the title or article - That's YOUR construction.
No, that was what I gathered from Comey and Risch conversation. Emphasis added. here is my initial comment: " one example from Comey was a NY times article about a supposed collusion between Trump and the Russians." here is transcript. Is your contention I said "Trump" instead of "Trump campaign"? Oh my. you got me.
RISCH: ... OK.
On — I remember, you — you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. You remember reading that article when it first came out?
COMEY: I do. It was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance...
RISCH: Correct.
(CROSSTALK)
COMEY: ... communications. Yes, sir.
RISCH: And — and that upset you to the point where you actually went out and surveyed the intelligence community to see whether — whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct?
COMEY: That’s correct. I want to be careful in open setting. But...
RISCH: I — I’m — I’m not going to any further than that with it.
COMEY: OK.
RISCH: So thank you.
In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the — this is not factual. Do you recall that?
COMEY: Yes.
RISCH: OK. So — so, again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?COMEY: In — in the main, it was not true. And, again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t. The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is that people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on.
And those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there.
I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th statement. Nonsense, but I can’t go explaining how it’s nonsense.
heh. One thing I find funny is Fox's use of all caps. I did a compare of each site just to see what was different and context to understand your post.
Fox headline: TRUMP '100 PERCENT' WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH: President says Comey lied, is coy on tapes
CNN headline: 'Ill testify under oath, Trump says
Nothing screams authentic news source like an all caps headline. I AM AUTHORITATIVE NEWS SOURCE AND CERTAINLY NOT CLICK BAIT AT ALL. Also learn how to buy Viagra at half the price!
Leading into 2. Humans have no more significance than anything else, including atoms, cells, etc...
I'm probably a bit overly sensitive, but this self depreciation has been played pretty hard by social engineers over the last couple decades.
This. It's like a flowery version of nihilism. If humans are not any more significant or important than anything else why would a human idea of morality be important or significant for humans?
So, all the examples I gave are not examples because reasons. Ok. The NY Times was one example and they have, more than once, have a title and a narrative of Russian collusion yet in one sentence hidden in the article say there is no evidence. That is disingenuous to me and the article that was discussed by Comey and Risch are of a similar narrative crafting. One sentence is contradicting 90% of the article is not honest journalism. CNN has been caught lying through omission and potentially other narrative crafting measures, yet you still trust them. Ethics and standards for journalism has been left behind such as the Goldwater rule. It isn't hard to find examples of a lack in ethics for journalists if you spend a few minutes looking. https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
character assassination from the WSJ is a thing beyond Trump. https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...
What about anonymous unverifiable sources, how much should we rely on them for the truth?
Sure, they are not perfect but I also understand that it is standard practice to not let emotions get in the way of honest reporting (one reason why you don't interview a loved one), Yet, for Trump that is different because hatred doesn't cloud the judgement or reporting, apparently. There are too many examples I could list. You may disagree with them but it is not a delusion to see the media failing at their job. Everyone understands that except you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and chastise me because I am not.
Honestly, If you don't see the crap that MSM have been doing then I don't know what to make of you other than you agree with their bias and lack of ethics and standards.
I don't care what Trump says or what foot he presents to media. Does Trump lie? Why would you believe him now for that? Trump lies except for when it suits you?
To me, it doesn't make sense at all. I don't think it makes sense to very many people but, like you, are quick to apply motive. Why would firing the head of the FBI in ANY way stop an FBI investigation?
How would firing the FBI director stop an FBI investigation?
Yes, Comey "had a gut feeling" but he didn't know if it was and wanted it to be known so others can make that decision.
Was there malicious intent? From what I have seen and heard I don't think there was. If there was, you would think there would be other actions that POTUS would take to undermine the investigation.
You are applying malice and intent when there is no evidence for any.
No. I don't watch Fox. I don't even have a TV.
Are you saying you do trust CNN ?
The first link was the first search result because I am lazy. Why do you trust Snopes? You trust CNN that even by your standards with "selective omission" yet say I am full of shit because ... ? You may not like the example and reason for why I think MSM present misinformation to attack Trump is good enough but you don't have much to go off from other than "look at this other opinion", "I trust CNN and MSM".
Sure thing. To each their own but for me the well has been poisoned so I don't hold much stock in the water. I see too many examples every day and I am too lazy to search it up.