2020 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - RULES IN OP

[Jgil316]

Isn't the New York post another arm of the Murdock trash "news"?
You know, the same company that defends their personalities in court by saying
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentar"
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Trump and his kids stole from their charity - but hey, that's ok because it's the dear leader!!!!

Funny thing about the internet, that y'all obviously fail to care about - you can google anything that supports the narrative that YOU want to "prove"

[Onions]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

The media's treatment of each administration has to be looked at in relation to the actions of each administration individually.
If a U.S. President wants to act like an authoritarian leader he'll get scrutinized accordingly.

"I have a pen and a phone" - Obama

[Onions]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

Isn't the New York post another arm of the Murdock trash "news"?
You know, the same company that defends their personalities in court by saying
"The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentar"
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Trump and his kids stole from their charity - but hey, that's ok because it's the dear leader!!!!

Funny thing about the internet, that y'all obviously fail to care about - you can google anything that supports the narrative that YOU want to "prove"

I thought we couldn't attack the media.

Fake News? Faux News? Depends on who's ox is being gored, I guess. Most of us can pick through the noise. The ones that cannot are the problem.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by rman112

These things were happening from the media's end before Trump was even the President.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/how...political-ends

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/1112742...thoritarianism

To be clear, I don't expect anyone to read either of these articles.

[rman112]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

https://psmag.com/social-justice/how...political-ends

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/1112742...thoritarianism

To be clear, I don't expect anyone to read either of these articles.

Do they talk about the daily hit pieces that had nothing to do with him actually being President (since he wasn't)?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Jgil316

What is your address - we will send you tin foil for new hats.

Ha ha, good one! Don't quit your day job.

Originally Posted by rman112

These things were happening from the media's end before Trump was even the President.

Exactly, and like petulant little children and sore losers they began the impeachment nonsense shortly after he entered office.

No rush to judgment on Trump — it's been ongoing since Election Day

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...e-election-day

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...achment-213817

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by rman112

Do they talk about the daily hit pieces that had nothing to do with him actually being President (since he wasn't)?

Feel free to read or skim through either article. I honestly don't know what you mean by daily hit pieces.

[Zedlaw]

Originally Posted by irv

Ha ha, good one! Don't quit your day job.



Exactly, and like petulant little children and sore losers they began the impeachment nonsense shortly after he entered office.

No rush to judgment on Trump — it's been ongoing since Election Day

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...e-election-day

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...achment-213817

Hillary Clinton won counties had 31 million more people than Trump won counties. Again, Trump’s platform is highly unpopular. This is the consequence of doing business that is unpopular.

[Jopeal]

I'm all for Biden jokes and criticisms of the MSM, but some of y'all need to put the violins down and move forward.

[coltsnsox07]

Hey one of the actual violins sold for almost 2 million 6 years ago, it was just sitting in the attic of the family of the Titanic musician all these years after they got his personal affects from when his body was recovered. He had it tied to his chest.

[Wombat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUm2KWPmnHg

[Astros19]

Liberal debate tactic, if you can't come up with a decent rebuttal, tell your opponent how his debating skills are weak.
Played time after time after time.
#weaksauce

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by Astros19

Liberal debate tactic, if you can't come up with a decent rebuttal, tell your opponent how his debating skills are weak.
Played time after time after time.
#weaksauce

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

To be fair, isn't that exactly what this post is doing?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[SleeperCards]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

To be fair, isn't that exactly what this post is doing?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by irv

I didn't think discostus was actually serious when he wrote that??

It's beyond me how anyone this day and age doesn't think the media is unbiased.
Certainly living in a different world than me.

I wonder how many remember this one, you know the one where CNN fabricated a story about a 15 yr old kid, Nick Sandman, all because he was wearing a MAGA hat?
Long story short, Nick, and his family's life was turned upside down until he sued CNN for $275 million. He also is in the process of suing a few other left leaning MSM sites like MSNBC, The Washington Post. The NY Times, etc.

Also sounds like, because CNN just can't help themselves and clearly the lawsuit didn't do anything to deter their fake news stories, Kyle Rittenhouse is also suing them for the same fake news B.S. as well as Joe Biden. Rittenhouse has retained the same lawyer as Nick's, but has been blocked from posting on Twitter and Facebook. Nah, no liberal bias here people. Move along now.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/nati...246142010.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkp...JgaLDKxkjP3oAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrQBqBY7fm4

Ben Shapiro PROVES that Lincoln Memorial native American is a LIAR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQbqJ3c7YfU

There's a lot to dissect here. Let's start with the bolded. What were you trying to say in that sentence? Taken for what it actually says, I guess my position is beyond you, since I very much don't feel like the media is unbiased. I also don't feel like it is difficult or surprising that any rational person's thoughts would be "beyond" you.

Communication is an important skill in the 21st century. Ranting about the media (when their job actually is communication) is something that probably should be done coherently if it is to be taken seriously. In this post, the bolded sentence is strike one.

Let's move on to the lawsuit about the kid. You allege that CNN wronged him and has been taken to court over it. From your own perspective, that's a good thing...no? Is that not an example of the system working? The courts (part of our government) can hold CNN or any other media organization accountable when they go too far and someone is hurt by it. This is the way things are supposed to be and it illustrates the point that the media, with all of the protections they enjoy, are still limited in what they can say without fear of repercussions. It feels like you were arguing against that or something. Strike two.

Lastly, media bias (and let's be real, while most of it is left-leaning, it exists for both sides) is fair play. They are allowed to be bias. It's part of what they do. It is because we have competing media bias on both sides that we can be made aware of all sides of an issue, though it does take more than one source of information to accomplish this. Abolishing bias for either side leaves us in a vulnerable position as consumers of information. This is strike three for your post. You're out.

Try again next at bat. This time didn't go well. Maybe instead of swinging for the fences, just float one out into the gap. It's a better strategy for those with warning track power.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[SleeperCards]

Saw a John Stuart Mill quote on Reddit and it's still true to this day, whether people like to admit it or not.

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives... I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by SleeperCards

Saw a John Stuart Mill quote on Reddit and it's still true to this day, whether people like to admit it or not.

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives... I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."

As a conservative (not a faux, Trumpy conservative that can't actually fathom conservative principles and actually thinks the republican party is still conservative in general), this quote is hard to argue against. I'd like to say "screw that" or "we are not a stupid group of people, the libs are", but that just wouldn't ring as true and I can forsee having trouble defending it.

While today's non-conservative republican party is crumbling on its way to the abyss, it would be incorrect to suggest that the left does not have it's share of bucketheads and dolts. Fortunately though, the right side of the aisle can indeed claim a superior percentage of them. Woohooo. Last I checked, the vote of a stupid person still counts. Come on in, chowderheads, the door is open. The entry fee is only one vote; be sure to bring it with you.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[ballhawkdawk]

Don’t stop at Republicans/Democrats when ranking intelligence. Tell me more. Disparities in gender, race, sexual preference... I like the term “stupid” too; let’s run with it.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

Don’t stop at Republicans/Democrats when ranking intelligence. Tell me more. Disparities in gender, race, sexual preference... I like the term “stupid” too; let’s run with it.

Gender, race, and sexual preference are inherent qualities not dependant on intelligence or even choice. Political affiliation is not. If you want to equate those things to political affiliation, have at it. I will not.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by JustRachel

Gender, race, and sexual preference are inherent qualities not dependant on intelligence or even choice. Political affiliation is not. If you want to equate those things to political affiliation, have at it. I will not.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Understood. So we’re comfortable assigning the label of “stupid” to large groups, so long as they’re part of that group by choice. Let’s go with profession. We’ve established that Democrats are 1 and Republicans are 2, with 2 being the stupid group. We feel good about this so far. Can you rank these from least stupid to most stupid for me:

- diesel mechanic
- farmer
- metallurgical engineer
- hip hop artist
- chemistry professor
- chef
- nurse
- neurosurgeon
- waitress

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

That’s what I thought. You’re the guy who was once a republican but is now aghast at the current state of the party and has to remind anyone who will listen at every opportunity.

What is it you wanna talk about? I remember disregarding you the first two times you did this, but you seem to really want my attention, otherwise you would’ve said your piece the first time and moved on. Let’s get this over with.

I actually have no beef with you and I appreciate you calling me on my posts Maybe I have been a little harsh and will try not to sink to a lower level.




But I'm still going to rail on the dems and especially the pubs who continue to disappoint me.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by ballhawkdawk

Understood. So we’re comfortable assigning the label of “stupid” to large groups, so long as they’re part of that group by choice. Let’s go with profession. We’ve established that Democrats are 1 and Republicans are 2, with 2 being the stupid group. We feel good about this so far. Can you rank these from least stupid to most stupid for me:



- diesel mechanic

- farmer

- metallurgical engineer

- hip hop artist

- chemistry professor

- chef

- nurse

- neurosurgeon

- waitress

I could do that, yes. However, I feel compelled to point out the error in your thinking before I do that.

We have not assigned the label of "stupid" to a large group. What we have done is acknowledge that most large groups have at least some stupid people in them and we have decided that the percentages of stupid people are not them same across all groups.

We have not decided that democrats are 1 and republicans are 2 with two being the stupid group. That is not an accurate characterization of what we have done. We (I) have indicated that in my observations, conservatives have a higher percentage of stupid people despite being the superior philosophy.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[corndog]

Being stupid is different from being ignorant.
Ignorance runs rampant in both parties.

[JustRachel]

Originally Posted by corndog

Being stupid is different from being ignorant.

Ignorance runs rampant in both parties.

This is very true.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[ballhawkdawk]

Originally Posted by blackbears86

I actually have no beef with you and I appreciate you calling me on my posts Maybe I have been a little harsh and will try not to sink to a lower level.




But I'm still going to rail on the dems and especially the pubs who continue to disappoint me.

I tend to post all kinds of nonsense without really tipping my hand as to whether I’m serious or not and hardly remember my own posts, so there’s probably all kinds of hypocritical stuff I post, but I’d say I’m less attached to those beliefs than most in here. I believe in supporting what you believe in, but voted for Trump over Jorgensen for reasons... there’s some hypocrisy.

I will say this... any hypocrisy is not the result of brainwashing, but pure ignorance. Most of my posts are by “feel.” You called me out for saying I’d expect more voter fraud from Democrats. That’s just the truth about how I see it, but what I was trying to get across was that I’d expect something like a 2:1 ratio in fraud with the total number of fraudulent votes from both sides being in the hundreds at most. I think the Democrats (people, not actual politicians) take a more “by any means necessary” approach (see riots). If we were talking about corporate fraud, I’d expect that to be more of a Republican thing, but also have no data or evidence to back that up either.

Or I could just be an unlikeable dick who only posts gibberish. I never rule that out. It’s a work in progress and I try not to get too salty either way.