West

You'll have to give me more specifics

Okay. Point me to the actual full speech in context and I'll take a listen. I've come to the conclusion that the media often selectively edits clips out of context to make a point

This was a reference to a different question. I'll tell you what. Please provide me with what you want me to read that you think will help me get to your position on Trump.

I see the Sandmann issue as kind of a final straw more so.

How so? I guess the point is while many distrust Fox, which network should we rely on?

I learned maybe a couple of months ago that people can buy and sell large social media accounts for big money. I would agree that monetization of filth is an issue but I don't think that's just one sided. The issue with the discussions around censorship on social media that I have is that it's generally one sided and used as a weapon. I see it as a psychological game.

I just find it difficult to know what is factual about Trump. Again, when I see that CNN as an example is willing to use a child as a face of one of their talking points, it would lead me to believe these are some pretty morally bankrupt people behind some of this stuff. Would you agree that this is a fair point?

For one I can't vote in the US but am interested due to friends that are there. For two, what I see is a pattern of accusations emerging against politicians. Perhaps both sides should take a step back and take them with a grain of salt?

Based on western legal systems, he is de facto innocent. Another issue I take with the left is this notion that a mere allegation is proof of anything. It's not really an American idea that one must prove they are innocent

When it reads like a tabloid level smear, then one should use that in assessing the merits. Just my two cents.

Yes. But there's obviously parameters around anything the government does. And in her opinion, who was far more familiar with the case, this did not meet the standards for a special counsel as, from what I recall, it's congress who approves a SC. This is obviously an important check in the American judicial system As an aside, the fact that folks who ran some of the other cases against Trump ran for DA office on getting Trump seems like an abuse of the office.

One of many reasons why I find it challenging to accept this at face value

You said that the federal judge who in essence tossed Jack Smith's case made a questionable ruling. Eileen Cannon is responsible for overseeing the proceedings of a trial against a citizen. She did her duty by tossing the case based on the fact Smith couldn't bring the charges to begin with. What's your credentials to say that Cannon's (the authority in the case) analysis was wrong?

So because she didn't give the opinion that you wanted it is questionable? This is sort of like Chuck Schumer threatening to "release the whirlwind" against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, two judges. Further evidence of the radicalization of the Democrat party

Jack Smith flung a lot of poo but when it got in front of a judge it was discredited. He tried again but it just showed the man was desperate for a headline. Any reasonable person can come to that conclusion based on the sequence of events over the past few years

I have no doubt you believe Trump is Hitler. Hence my previous comment about the radicalization by the content you consume earlier. Hard to know whether or not this was "illegal" as the Georgia case also has some pretty significant holes in it.

Judge Eileen Cannon for starters who tossed the case.

There's many sources that you can look for yourself seeing as you claim you take information from multiple places.

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case. The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized. Likely because the experts critiquing the case already had access to the information. Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler.

It's not really a "Fox News" view. In the case of Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old kid who was smeared in the press, I would consider that to be a radicalized view point that grown ass adults would find this to be okay. I also see this nonstop predatory behavior in the justice system to be fairly radical. There was a bit of a push especially when the Supreme court was left leaning to ram everything through the Supreme Court instead of through the act of persusion. I also consider many other things radical such as the Democrat lockdowns during covid, villianization of the unvaccinated, etc as being radical. He was a minor smeared by grown ass adults. Pretty radical and disgraceful

Leaving aside the settlement value, do you believe it's morally repugnant to do what they did to a child?

I've read many of these pieces. However watching Trump's speeches in their entirety do not really support the hit pieces. Just my opinion.

Fox is definitely right of center especially in their prime time. However, there's also Fox Business, and their weekend programming which is more information based. Many of their articles are Associated Press as well. I think you honestly need to watch CNN and MSNBC with a bit more of a critical lense. There's a lot of things they do or say on there that is hateful toward different groups of people. They've labelled half the country as racist degenerates and have run multiple hit pieces on people. Do Democrats hate America? I would say their party has become significantly more radicalized since probably Obama's second term than they were under lets say Al Gore or Bill Clinton of the late 90s early 2000s. Hence why you've seen some splinter off such as RFK, or even Joe Manchin who left the party to sit as an independent.

CNN settled an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old CHILD at the time where he had his face plastered all over the internet. This, alongside other reasons, was a reason why I stopped watching CNN; the coverage of this as well as other stories that they ran are quite vile. You actually think these are good people? https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html How do you filter based on reputation? Your opinions? How would you suggest I filter this knowing I have a moral issue with how CNN has historically conducted themselves?

Okay so you are mad that I consider CNN to be what you consider Fox? How do you filter and come to the conclusions you do? And that's not really my point about UNESCO but since you asked here you go https://www.unesco.org/en/newsroom