4 ms·

What are "lies" that Aaron Sorkin likes which he is conflating as truth? Also are you suggesting because the New York Times has a paywall that no one should pub

What are "lies" that Aaron Sorkin likes which he is conflating as truth? Also are you suggesting because the New York Times has a paywall that no one should publish any "open letters" like somehow he's involved in the paywall?

m0zg 7y ago
He has a major case of Trump derangement syndrome: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aaron-sorkin-trump-is-really-dumb-has-observable-psychiatric-disorder https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aaron-sorkin-trump-is-rea.... Read his "open letter" to his daughter as well. It did not age well, at all. A rational person would eventually conclude that dumb people do not become multi-billionaire real estate moguls or tv stars, or win US presidential elections with half the money and without any political experience. But that's not the possibility TDS sufferers are willing to entertain. Eccentric? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Not a good speaker? Yes. Dumb? Hell no. Is there any doubt in your mind that Sorkin's diatribe is aimed squarely at barring just _one_ kind of political advertisements and speech? I mean, let's take just one sentence of what he wrote: "Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son." There are two problems with this sentence: 1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then, 2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing. You can't have it both ways, and yet that's exactly what the likes of Sorkin seem to be arguing for. And at a minimum, you have to agree that what Sorkin is characterizing as "truth" in this case, not only smells fishy, but, well, there's no evidence that it is, in fact, truth. This was, in effect, "banned" from mainstream "free" press for years, until Trump dragged it out in the open in a way they could not ignore. Did he do it to destroy Joe's presidential campaign? He sure did (Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Can you fault him for it? I can't, espeically not after the shit bath Trump himself was subjected to. No matter how you slice it, this stinks to high heaven. Given the situation I don't want any Biden ties to the Chinese in particular, and that $1.5B his "talented" son got from them kinda gets in the way of that.
- Traster 7y ago
  >1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then, No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie. You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent. >2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing. There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points. >(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion Nobody claims that they were. But Biden not only did get the Ukrainian AG fired in the span of 6 hours under the threat of withholding $1B (which, BTW, ended any further investigation into Burisma, how convenient), he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY. It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find). I mean, if this is the kind of stuff you're pissed at Zuck for not censoring, then I'm sorry, you're supporting blatant, third-world style government corruption. I didn't read the rest of your message.

m0zg 7y ago

He has a major case of Trump derangement syndrome: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aaron-sorkin-trump-is-really-dumb-has-observable-psychiatric-disorder https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aaron-sorkin-trump-is-rea.... Read his "open letter" to his daughter as well. It did not age well, at all. A rational person would eventually conclude that dumb people do not become multi-billionaire real estate moguls or tv stars, or win US presidential elections with half the money and without any political experience. But that's not the possibility TDS sufferers are willing to entertain. Eccentric? Yes. Selfish? Yes. Not a good speaker? Yes. Dumb? Hell no. Is there any doubt in your mind that Sorkin's diatribe is aimed squarely at barring just _one_ kind of political advertisements and speech? I mean, let's take just one sentence of what he wrote: "Right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son." There are two problems with this sentence: 1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then, 2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing. You can't have it both ways, and yet that's exactly what the likes of Sorkin seem to be arguing for. And at a minimum, you have to agree that what Sorkin is characterizing as "truth" in this case, not only smells fishy, but, well, there's no evidence that it is, in fact, truth. This was, in effect, "banned" from mainstream "free" press for years, until Trump dragged it out in the open in a way they could not ignore. Did he do it to destroy Joe's presidential campaign? He sure did (Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Can you fault him for it? I can't, espeically not after the shit bath Trump himself was subjected to. No matter how you slice it, this stinks to high heaven. Given the situation I don't want any Biden ties to the Chinese in particular, and that $1.5B his "talented" son got from them kinda gets in the way of that.

Traster 7y ago
>1. I'm from Eastern Europe originally, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. But if you disagree, then, No matter what you believe, what we can say is that there's literally no evidence for this. Firstly, there's no evidence that Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion dollars- which frankly, is a big hole in such an outrageous claim. Given that this is an extreme claim which not only has no factual basis, but actually has been investigated and found not to have a factual basis, it is a lie. You can make an argument that there was some issue around holding up a loan guarantee, to the ukrainian state from the US in return for pursuing US foreign policy objectives, but the fact is that the relationship between the details of that discussion, and what is actually claimed in Sorkin's example is non-existent. >2. You can't impeach Trump for, allegedly, doing the milder version of the exact same thing. There is a difference between using state apparatus to pursue US foreign policy objectives, and using state apparatus (and questionable private entities) to pursue US domestic political objectives. A fact you either don't understand or are deliberately glossing over to try and score political points. >(Joe isn't running anymore - he's only pretending to; there's no fundraising). Again, you can make claims like these if you want, but if you have no evidence to support your claim and the opposition to your point of view can bring up obvious facts to show you're lying, then I'm afraid, we all have to just call you a liar and move on. Biden has raised $16m in the last quarter, so your claim is factually wrong. It's also a conspiracy theory - that somehow Joe Biden is pretending to run a campaign.... to what? Like, you've just descended into nonsense.
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> Joe Biden or the Ukrainian AG have ever been in possession of 1 Billion Nobody claims that they were. But Biden not only did get the Ukrainian AG fired in the span of 6 hours under the threat of withholding $1B (which, BTW, ended any further investigation into Burisma, how convenient), he had the gall to brag about it on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY. It's also a fact that his son had no experience in oil, gas or Ukraine, and only sat on that board because of his last name (something he _himself_ admitted in an interview which you can also easily find). I mean, if this is the kind of stuff you're pissed at Zuck for not censoring, then I'm sorry, you're supporting blatant, third-world style government corruption. I didn't read the rest of your message.