Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "PROPAGANDA SPIRAL: Dem "concern" about Trump winning spun as anti-Biden" video.

  1.  stevenrivers8386  Like you can diagnose "severe cog decline," you who assume the more emojis you use, the more correct you are.
    6
  2. I think the same thing. Blumenthal was exceptionally vague here. Deliberately so? The video seemed to be clipped, especially when it got to the reporters: They were given only five seconds, during which time they asked only "what are they wanting to conclude?" Or something similar.
    4
  3. What did they get wrong there? Dave barely gave them five seconds air time. All they did was ask, "How are they ultimately going to reach that conclusion?" I'd like to know that too, since Blumenthal didn't specify what they were trying to conclude. Dave assumed what the senator was saying (without showing it), and what the reporters were saying (without showing it). And you just go along with it. Go ahead, quote for me what they got wrong there.
    4
  4.  @DonFonzarelli-uq9yx  You are wrong: I do not support your brain.
    4
  5. What "playing pretend" are you even talking about? And how is it ending? Maybe write more than one short, vague sentence.
    3
  6.  @mmafyasco  Just with the caps lock, and the multiple exclamation points. And that's not really childish, just standard fare for the internet. What they wrote is factual.
    3
  7.  @jbird452  "Common sense" is what anti-intellectuals call their illogical thinking. OP was a tad hyperbolic. While I don't speak for them, I'll say this: Joe won the primary. He's our candidate. He already said he's not stepping down. DonDon wants to implement Project 2025. If you had more than common, everyday sense, you would have realized all of that, without me having to spell it out.
    3
  8. It's hard to tell the difference between a bot, a magot, and a bored troll...for me, at least.
    3
  9.  @DonFonzarelli-uq9yx  You couldn't agree more, because you couldn't think more, troll.
    3
  10. Agreed. And Dave gave the news lady 5 seconds of air time, during which she only ask, "What are they wanting to conclude?" Or something like that. Dave was off his game with this one. Happens to everyone now and then.
    3
  11.  @billyboy1093  Agreed. I really hope "David [didn't] show the FULL clip for context." Because there wasn't any.
    3
  12.  @Shorty_Lickens  No doubt it's cut short. And Dave is a favorite of mine, because of how logical and informative he is. Nevertheless, he didn't demonstrate his claim here. So I can't conclude anything about msn or cnn from this video.
    2
  13. You don't get to make that call. He won the primary. He's the candidate.
    2
  14. Where is the entire interview? The clips shown here showed nothing.
    2
  15. Dave barely gave the reporter five seconds air time. All they did was ask, "How are they ultimately going to reach that conclusion?" I'd like to know that too, since Blumenthal didn't specify what "they" (whomever that is) were trying to "conclude." Dave assumed what the senator was saying (without showing it), and what the reporters were saying (without showing it). I'm sorry, sir, but this was a shoddy video.
    2
  16. I'd remind you (and those geniuses like you), that there are only four months until the election, with DonDon and Project 2025 in the balance. And you want to bring in someone new? Joe beat everyone in the primary. He's the nominee. And he said he isn't dropping out. So they'd have to force him out. That will totally splinter the democratic party, which would guarantee a Trump victory. So what you're parroting is what's irresponsible.
    1
  17.  @billyboy1093  Agreed. I feel weird defending CNN over Dave, too. I have no doubt of rampant propaganda and spin out there. But this video doesn't show it.
    1
  18.  @Shorty_Lickens  Meh. Keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. I go from what's evident, demonstrable: not what Mulder and Scully are investigating this week.
    1
  19.  @DonFonzarelli-uq9yx  If you delete "this country," then your statement would be factual.
    1
  20.  @mnicy  Or replacing Joe will allow DonDon to win, especially given that we're four months from the election.
    1
  21.  @MBX808  Excuse me? You sure you got the right person?
    1
  22.  @MBX808  I know what project 2025 is. What makes you think I don't? What did I say to you that got you on my case?
    1
  23. I agree. Blumenthal was very cryptic too. He said he supported Joe. But what "conclusion" needed to be reached? People have been talking about him stepping down. Joe said he wasn't going to. So who needs to conclude what, exactly?
    1
  24. Oh, David, sir, really? There has been a convoy of truckloads of disparaging talk about Joe since the debate. It all centered around people saying that debate was the end-all, be-all of evidence that Joe wasn't fit. You say, "He's not worried about Biden as an individual." Well, what "decision" is he talking about? Why is he concerned about people reaching that conclusion? What conclusion? The video doesn't say. He's very cryptic. But I think we can guess. It's the conclusion on whether or not to force Joe to withdraw. Joe already said he wasn't going to do that. So they would have to force him. How? I don't know. Is that the conclusion Senator Blumenthal is saying they need to reach? He claimed, "Biden has my support." So, again, what conclusion needs to be reached? I don't really think they took it out of context at all, though that would depend on exactly what the "conclusion" is about. We don't know, because he didn't say. But since everyone and their dog has been talking about replacing Joe, and Joe already said he's not withdrawing, what else could he be referring to?
    1
  25. They didn't say anything wrong in this video. Dave barely gave them 5 seconds, just enough time to ask a question: "How are they ultimately going to reach that conclusion?" I'd also like to know the answer to that question, since Blumenthal didn't say either who needed to make the "conclusion," or what that conclusion has to do with.
    1
  26.  @elizabethparise4811  I responded to you on another thread, but since you felt the need to respond to me on this thread, I might as well repeat myself. David didn't show the evidence of the reporters making things up. He showed a 5-second clip, which didn't show what he claimed. Since David is normally logical, I can only assume this was a mistake. Spare me the "you really missed the entire point" cliche, especially since you missed the point of my reply. And next time, restrict yourself to one reply to me, please.
    1
  27.  @jeremyk3670  That's still not "the public." That's two-thirds of the public who were polled, if we believe your statistics. And I don't, since you're all about forcing Joe out. Eat fudge, Ivan.
    1
  28. Four months before the election, with DonDon running, and Joe having won the Democratic primary and saying he wasn't dropping out. Yeah, it would be pro-Trump. I'm not saying the Senator here said that, though, since he was so cryptic: We don't know what he said, or who had to "conclude" something, or what "they" (whomever that is) had to conclude. He might as well have shouted "yabba dabba doo!" Would've made more sense.
    1
  29.  @Ginseng2002  You wrote two words, which were really quoting the OP, and posted 5 of the same emoji. You couldn't be more pointless and obtuse.
    1
  30.  @joeg4589  Over this video? Dave barely gave them 5 seconds, just enough to only ask a question: "How are they ultimately going to reach that conclusion?" For that they should be abolished? Or are you talking about something else? Maybe post your hashtag where it's relevant.
    1
  31.  @joeg4589  I couldn't tell who clipped Blumenthal's remarks. But the reporters also had their remarks clipped. So we didn't actually hear them say what Dave claimed they said. And I'm not in favor of abolishing all corporate media, because of how some unknown person clipped Blumenthal's remarks. And even if I was, no one would care that I wanted them abolished: It's empty posturing.
    1
  32.  @joeg4589  All you wrote was a hashtag. And you wrote it as a reply to THIS VIDEO. So, since you gave no other context, not even a single complete sentence, what other conclusion was I to reach? You act like I can read your mind. I cannot. As far as I could glean from your hashtag, you wanted to abolish corporate media because of this video, or what this video represents to you. Finally, I ASKED for clarification. I didn't assert it.
    1
  33. Which would mean replacing the President who won the democratic primary...four months before the election. No thanks. Not with DonDon as a possibility.
    1
  34. I'd remind you (and those geniuses like you), that there are only four months until the election, with DonDon and Project 2025 in the balance. And you want to bring in someone new? Joe beat everyone in the primary. He's the nominee. And he said he isn't dropping out. So they'd have to force him out. That will totally splinter the democratic party, which would guarantee a Trump victory.
    1
  35.  @elizabethparise4811  My point (6 days ago) was that he didn't show the full clip from the reporters. With the 5 seconds he showed, there was no evidence of what he claimed. That is not like David, who is a very logical thinker. He should have shown their "FULL response," but didn't.
    1
  36. How did they do bad, in that 5 seconds we saw there?
    1