Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I found a quote about my country which I felt was worthy of discussion. Whatever else you get from that is you reading into things— with a rather large chip on your shoulder I might add…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Finite yes but we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry and leave many houses vacant while people remain homeless. This is not a supply problem it is s distribution problem. Our distribution system is capitalist. That is the problem.
Capitalism isn’t just a system of wealth distribution; it is also a system of wealth creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Vestigial as in evolutionary leftover. The desire to protect limited resources is an evolutionary advantage that hurts us now that we have plenty to go around but don't really know how to share effectively.
Resources are no longer limited?
Assuming your claim as true, human nature remains unchanged. Large populations still have to be coerced into sharing what they believe they have earned, and the elites of society will want to retain more money and power than the general populace. Hence, authoritarianism/totalitarianism… and concentration of wealth (via political power rather than via enterprise).
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not advocating for socialism or Marxism or any other isms by the way only pointing out the problems of capitalism and how it can be used to short circuit our survival instincts by tying those instincts artificially to the movements of little pieces of paper which are at there most basic actually divorced from our survival.
In saying what you are NOT advocating for, it leads me to wonder what DO you advocate for as an economic system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry— you lost me at “vestigial reaction.” I also don’t see how what you said next concerns what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Technically, they should not be equated in theory, but they are correlated in practice. Ideally, communism is community control of the means of production. It can work in small contexts, as in communes— which, ironically, can exist just fine in free, capitalist countries.
Totalitarianism rears its ugly head when communism is employed on a large scale, mainly because of human nature. Larger populations have to be coerced into sharing wealth, for one. The leaders at the top tend to hoard and protect their wealth and power, for another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Right. I find it interesting to note that our Constitution was actually an increase in federal power from the Articles of Confederation. It’s difficult to see that today, as the Constitution goes to such lengths to limit federal power. The Federalist Papers were not written to persuade authoritarians toward the new Constitution; they were written to persuade those afraid of federal overreach!
Created:
Posted in:
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America.”
Discuss…
Created:
Posted in:
The DNC won in the short term… America lost in the longer term.
I think we are seeing the increasing effects in our elections of corporate control over information (social media with its algorithms in particular) and how it is presented and distributed— or not distributed as the case may be…
“Overall, a potential interpretation of these results is as follows. Twitter users, and users of other social media platforms, are more likely to be young, well-educated, live in dense urban areas, and support the Democratic party (see discussion in Section 2). Perhaps as a result, Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republicans (Figure 1). In 2016 and 2020, Twitter became a vehicle for spreading opinions, particularly from Democratic-slanted users, on Trump. This may, in turn, have persuaded voters with weaker priors—independents and perhaps more moderate Republicans—to vote against Trump in the presidential election.49
7 Conclusion
Election officials around the globe are concerned about social media’s increasing influence on voting decisions (e.g. NPR, 2020a). At the time of writing, there is a heated debate about whether platform providers should “moderate” election-related content in the U.S. (e.g. Politico, 2020). Exploiting variation based on a shock to Twitter’s initial rise to popularity,
our paper provides some of the first empirical evidence that social media can affect election outcomes.
We find that Twitter lowered the Republican party’s vote share in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. While this finding runs counter to a popular narrative that places social media at the heart of Trump’s election win, it is consistent with a growing body of evidence showing that social media users were less, not more likely to vote for Trump in 2016 or hold polarized views (Boxell et al., 2017, 2018).
We also provide support for the idea that the demographics of Twitter users may account for the platform’s partisan effects. People who use Twitter are 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republican, and Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republican ones. Our work suggests that this environment not only reflects selection of like-minded individuals, but also affects voting decisions, particularly for people with more moderate views.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~fujiwara/papers/SocialMediaAndElections.pdf
I think we are seeing the increasing effects in our elections of corporate control over information (social media with its algorithms in particular) and how it is presented and distributed— or not distributed as the case may be…
“Overall, a potential interpretation of these results is as follows. Twitter users, and users of other social media platforms, are more likely to be young, well-educated, live in dense urban areas, and support the Democratic party (see discussion in Section 2). Perhaps as a result, Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republicans (Figure 1). In 2016 and 2020, Twitter became a vehicle for spreading opinions, particularly from Democratic-slanted users, on Trump. This may, in turn, have persuaded voters with weaker priors—independents and perhaps more moderate Republicans—to vote against Trump in the presidential election.49
7 Conclusion
Election officials around the globe are concerned about social media’s increasing influence on voting decisions (e.g. NPR, 2020a). At the time of writing, there is a heated debate about whether platform providers should “moderate” election-related content in the U.S. (e.g. Politico, 2020). Exploiting variation based on a shock to Twitter’s initial rise to popularity,
our paper provides some of the first empirical evidence that social media can affect election outcomes.
We find that Twitter lowered the Republican party’s vote share in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. While this finding runs counter to a popular narrative that places social media at the heart of Trump’s election win, it is consistent with a growing body of evidence showing that social media users were less, not more likely to vote for Trump in 2016 or hold polarized views (Boxell et al., 2017, 2018).
We also provide support for the idea that the demographics of Twitter users may account for the platform’s partisan effects. People who use Twitter are 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republican, and Democratic politicians are more popular on Twitter than Republican ones. Our work suggests that this environment not only reflects selection of like-minded individuals, but also affects voting decisions, particularly for people with more moderate views.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~fujiwara/papers/SocialMediaAndElections.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
Maher also predicted “We need to have a recession in order to get rid of Trump.” Turned out to be true, but he isn’t exactly boasting it from the rooftops, nor am I wondering why not. I sincerely hope this prediction is remembered in 2024 no matter what happens.
I’ll make my own prediction: the DNC will do everything it can to make sure mail in voting becomes a continued— even permanent fixture in the election process…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So is this really it? It’s Biden created crisis for maintaining longstanding US policy?
It’s about incentives and disincentives, too. Trump executed several controversial measures which disincentivized border crossing attempts. When Biden took office, he pretty much rolled back every Trump measure along with a 100 day moratorium on deportations with some exceptions. This increased incentives. Heck, just Trump being out of office increased that. Also, Biden said on the campaign trail that he was for universal healthcare even for border crossers, and the world was listening.
Another interesting aspect: the Supreme Court reinstated Trump’s controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy by 6-3 vote. It requires non Mexican people to remain in Mexico while awaiting their court date, I believe. Funny thing is that the Biden admin didn’t seem too terribly disappointed about that.
The Biden admin seemed to have a disconnect about immigration and refugees when it came to people coming from Cuba. It tried hard to disincentivize that origin of asylum seeking, which only served to confirm suspicions that Biden’s immigration policy is highly political.
As is usually the case, righties think Biden has done too much to open the borders, while lefties think he hasn’t done enough (yet).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In Trump they see something they’ve never seen in a politician… themselves. They don’t know anything about NATO or why it matters, well Trump doesn’t either. They don’t want any more Muslims coming in and don’t see why we can’t just ban them, well neither does Trump. They can’t stand the fact that they have to accept when they lose an election, well neither does Trump. And the guy is a big success so he must know what he’s talking about.
This is definitely a part of it. It gives him an effortless authenticity to his supporters. It reminds me of a rally where Trump was bragging about how unpresidential he was. He embraced it. “Unpresidential they say. How fun would it be if I tried to be presidential? This is me being presidential *walks as if he has a rod up his wazzoo*”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Oh, you don’t want a constructive discussion. Why didn’t you say so?
As to this:
As to this:
Our contributions don't really seem the same though. You are able to write such a cool thread topic, whereas I feel like just being a whiny little snot.
Yes, well, I don’t know what to tell you other than… stop being that way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I’m afraid you are really missing the point of this thread (and my statement you are responding to just now, btw). Did you read the PS?
Also, you really shouldn’t alter a person’s statement and then attribute the altered statement back to the person via the quote feature. It is a nonstarter to constructive discussion…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump grabs every 3rd rail issue in politics because he can. When he is the only voice, he has a monopoly on the solution. That is how he used his business sense to get into politics. He saw an opening and a way to corner the market in politics by monopolizing issues nobody else would previously dare address.
Excellent insight. Too bad I have yet to see the loyal Trump opposition express anything like it. Well, too bad for the loyal Trump opposition and the nation as a whole by extension…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Assuming your summarization as true, this administration’s response to that anger among the populace is to open the borders even more and hope for the best, which is what I mean about the dangerous failure of Trump’s opposition to properly analyze his appeal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Wow, the word persecuted really has lost a lot of meaning over the last few thousand years hasn't it?
We refer to getting burned at the stake for one’s beliefs as persecution in the context of a thousand years ago. In the present day, it can comprise not getting called by one’s preferred pronoun…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, and it’s hardly the only one…
Created:
Posted in:
Back in pre election 2016, a (foreign) brother-in-law asked me what was up with Trump’s popularity in the US. I replied, “I don’t fully understand it, but whether you agree with it or not, we as a nation need to understand what the appeal is and why it’s there”— and I said that assuming he was going to lose. That much greater the need to understand his appeal after he won! To the contrary, his opposition just made continual efforts to unseat him rather than comprehend what was happening.
After his election, his presidency, and his departure from office, I cannot help but observe that over half the nation still does not have a clue as to why Trump has an enduring popularity with so much of the nation. I believe his opposition ignores his appeal at their own peril.
Now, with the added advantage of hindsight, why do you think a (former) president such as Trump has such intense loyalty among his supporters?
After his election, his presidency, and his departure from office, I cannot help but observe that over half the nation still does not have a clue as to why Trump has an enduring popularity with so much of the nation. I believe his opposition ignores his appeal at their own peril.
Now, with the added advantage of hindsight, why do you think a (former) president such as Trump has such intense loyalty among his supporters?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Critical Race theory is one of the underpinning social theories about systemic racism.
That is not being taught.
What is being taught, from what I can see, is a deeper and more specific set of history about historical racism, the impacts of racism; how various groups have been historically oppressed, which is more “history” than “critical race theory”.
I have so many questions/concerns about this issue that I will refrain from asking them all at once. To start, if CRT is an inaccurate label, what should this push to alter lower education be called?
Created:
Posted in:
Dave Chappelle just finished his final comedy special (for now), and he has an offensive tendency towards punching down at people he fails to understand. Namely, Trump supporters. He took a subtle but definite swipe at Trump supporters, and it wasn’t the first time, either. Does he not know that Trump supporters are persecuted every day in our society? Shame on Netflix for giving a comedian with such offensive jokes a platform…
PS Nah, not really. I can take it just fine. I don’t have to disrespect/dislike/cancel someone just because we disagree on certain things. We can joke about it, can’t we? Lighten up, people. Humor is the first casualty of political correctness and certainly not the last. If you need some background on this subject:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What kind of airplane do you have? I only have a Rockwell Commander 114.
Oh, I wouldn’t sell one of those short. I understand they are comfortable, well-built, and darn nice looking to boot! Added bonus: Robert A. “Bob” Hoover (RIP) once flew his trademark aerobatic demos in one…
Created:
-->
@949havoc
It is not a stretch to predict that home schooling will take on ever increasing popularity. Is CRT being taught in lower education? The answer to that is merely an exercise in semantics:
Technically, no, but in general terms, kinda sorta. What one calls it should be quite secondary to the actual content and ideological agenda behind it. Then there are schools such as in Seattle, which go so far as to mix identity politics with mathematics, of all things:
Semantical arguments regarding CRT make for a smokescreen with an air of academic authority in the meantime. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” while your children are “properly” educated and enlightened…
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Thank our lucky stars that Merrick Garland didn’t get on the Supreme Court. Really dodged a landmine there…
I half expect these school board members to finally announce “NOW you know what systemic oppression is and what it feels like, white people! Bazinga!”
Well played, CRTers; well played…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Since you have stated that the honest assessment of Biden's almost 9 months in office is that nothing has improved except the stock market, I think we have established that you are not, yourself, an honest assayer of political facts.
You are reading statements I haven’t made. Wouldn’t hurt you to lighten up a tad…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Extra bonus points awarded!
But… I feel the need to add— stock market highs are mainly a result of the Fed, which hasn’t yet changed leadership.
Created:
Posted in:
So, here we are, nearing the end of Biden’s first year in office.
What do you believe has improved? What do you believe has worsened?
Extra bonus points if you can give honest answers to both!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But there’s this bit:
“Republicans have twice blocked Democrats from raising the debt ceiling: once, to suspend the debt ceiling as part of a short-term government funding bill, and a second time when Schumer tried to bypass the 60-vote filibuster to set up a stand-alone bill to suspend the debt ceiling.”
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ok, I’m still trying to figure your reasoning out— would you describe any auto accident, for example, as “deadly” because auto accidents have the known potential to involve fatalities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Your argument appears to be:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless a person diesP2: Ashli Babbitt was the only person to have died on Jan 6thC1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
You have conceded P2. I have asked for a source on P1 but I think its safe to say your conclusion's already done.
Now you are arguing HOMICIDE as a condition for P2 but that makes your P1 obviously untrue:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless there's homicideP2: Ashli Babbitt was the only homicide on Jan 6thC1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
P1 is manifestly false. When a car goes off a cliff, that can always be called a DEADLY accident but it is not always (not even generally) homicide.
Oh, my… I hope you didn’t spend too much time on that.
Ok, I was maybe hoping I could sort of *reason you through* your incorrect usage of “deadly” to an event with no fatalities (hypothetically speaking, of course), but it looks like that ain’t happening…
As for the equivocation fallacy, there are so many references on it that I could just guide you through the keystrokes required to find them on your little computer there. I know that wouldn’t cut the mustard with you, though, so here’s one:
Still, I really think I explained the problem very clearly already. Now, I know you’re still not going to reach any sort of epiphany from reading some reference, even if you did ask for it. I get the idea from your rather over-serious efforts that you would only accept a vote from some illustrious moderation panel here. The important thing is that I’m not bothered either way what you think…
Anyhoo… yes, multiple fatalities at that event, but only one *directly* caused by the event itself, and it was one of the rioters, not one of the people being… eh, rioted against? So, to put it a different way: the January 6 riot WAS deadly… to the rioters!
Remember the story that day about the policeman getting beaten with the fire extinguisher? Yes, it was an awful story. Good thing it wasn’t awfully true! Our objective media really ran with that one didn’t they? Funny how they didn’t do their due diligence until after they repeated that rumor daily. Hmm… it’s almost as if our trusty, objective media is trying to reenforce some sort of bigger narrative… it is to ponder…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
By equivocating, I mean that you are playing with the definition of a word (and not in a good way). To demonstrate the flaw in your use of the word “deadly” as applied to an event:
“Oh, my god, there was a deadly shooting today!”
“Oh, no! How many fatalities?”
“Well, none that we know of; several injuries though. But… the shooter clearly had deadly intent and used a deadly weapon. Ergo… the shooting was deadly! QED…”
*eyeroll*
To reiterate, I don’t deny that the riot was deadly. I am merely pointing out that the only *homicide* was one of the *rioters*. Here is what wiki has to say under “Casualties”:
“Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was fatally shot in the shoulder by Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd while attempting to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door.[326] This was soon ruled a justified homicide.[261][327][328] Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old responding Capitol Police officer, was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had two thromboembolic strokes the next day,[329][330] after which he was placed on life support,[8] and soon died.[331][332] The D.C. chief medical examiner found he died from a stroke, classifying his death as natural,[333] and commenting that "all that transpired played a role in his condition".[334][335] Rosanne Boyland, 34, died of an amphetamineoverdose during the riot,[336] ruled accidental by the D.C. medical examiner's office.[17] Kevin Greeson, 55, and Benjamin Philips, 50, died naturally from coronary heart disease and hypertensive heart disease.[17]”
So, yes, there was a stroke connected to the riot, but it was classified as death by “natural causes,” ie not a homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No, I’m afraid you’re equivocating there. “Deadly” as applied to an event (as in this case) means someone died during the event (or later died from injuries sustained at the event, if one wants to be super duper technical about it, as so many debaters seem to be). For example, a shooting CANNOT be described as “deadly” unless someone died in the shooting.
Created:
Posted in:
If not for Babbitt’s tragic death, our media would not be able to describe that occurrence as “the DEADLY January 6th capitol riot.” Well, they would still be able to, but not without issuing a retraction later near the back page…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
It can be both simultaneously rather than being mutually exclusive.
It is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though: which came first, the profiting at others’ expense, or the anti-Semitism? Sure, I can generalize why the prejudice exists in modern times, but I really can’t say how, why or when anti-Semitic sentiment originated. The “profiting at others’ expense” accusation strikes me as merely jealousy rearing its ugly head.
They do seem to play the cards they are dealt in life quite well, if I may generalize…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I believe that the fundamental notion behind anti-Semitism is that Jews profit at the expense of non-Jews.
And therein lies the conundrum: Jews tend to prosper *in spite of* the long history and preponderance of anti-Semitic sentiment at best, and outright persecution and genocide at worst, in the world. They certainly pose a stark contrast to other victimized groups which blame their lack of prosperity on their victimization.
Created:
Any stubborn, old fool could simply withdraw his forces from a country with disastrous results. And a stubborn, old fool did…
Created:
Posted in:
Why do some societies/people groups advance more rapidly and generate more wealth than others?
This, from a doc (and a book, I believe) titled “Guns, Germs, and Steel”:
tldr: the common denominators of wealth and advancement in human history appear to be the presence of domesticatable animals and farmable land.
But this background knowledge wouldn’t inform present day policy at all…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so the example such as with the 'mockery' element and such is that if you mock a race that has been continually victimised and isolated, it has more harshness than if you aim your mockery at a race that is blatantly dominant. I am not saying I agree, what I am saying is 'racism' in that context is referring to how harsh the impact is.
Oh, I understood your earlier explanation just fine. The point here specifically is the word “cannot [be racist].” Says who?
You dare disagree with your moral betters? Well, you know what you will be accused of if you do that…
It can be. Especially because this question is a terribly worded one that people should stop using altogether (I genuinely mean that). Other than first-generation immigrants, there is a huge issue with the question 'where are you from' as it is not clear if it means to ascertain where you grow up and resided in for your younger life or alternatively means to ascertain where does your ethnic bloodline trace back to.
My spouse has a foreign accent; she gets asked “Where are you from?” all the time. No offense intended; no offense taken. However, I have to resist the urge to command “Please, don’t ‘otherize’ my wife!” Offense comes far too easily these days…
Another funny story:
Back in college freshman (oops! Bad word!) orientation, we were walking through a computer lab, and there was a Sikh wearing his customary turban headgear. Here’s how the dialog went:
“So, where are you from?”
“Fresno.” (Gets some chuckles from our group)
“No, where are you REALLY from?”
“India.”
“Ok, I knew he was from someplace!”
Now, for the plot twist: the student asking about the origins of the headgear happened to be African American. Doesn’t that conflict with example #1 that POC “cannot” be racist (or racially insensitive/xenophobic/etc)? (Rhetorical question, really)
Depends on the person and other things contextually, this is far too generic and vague for me to talk about either way.
My point is that your reasonable definition gets expanded beyond its original bounds by many progressives. To be honest, I wasn’t looking for your explication of these examples I posit. Rather, I was giving examples of definition “creep”… aka “moving of the goalposts.” THAT is really my point.
I don't recall anyone arguing this ever but please show me.
Oh, well, you’re going to love this then:
Who knew?
Again, my point being that the definition of “racism” is constantly expanded to a very confusing, and unreasonable IMO, degree. I even see it lead to contradictory concepts. Hence, my question 2 about who all agree to the definition, and finally my question 3 asking who/what/where is able to escape any accusation of racism. Because if everything is racist, the word loses its meaning and impact… and it’s a shame when important words and concepts lose their original meaning and impact…
Anyway, thanks for at least addressing my first question, as my original addressee seems either unwilling or unable to answer ANY of my questions…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your comprehensive answer to my first question!
One of the problems, as I see it, is that (too) many in progressive circles have expanded upon your definition greatly. Such as:
1. People of Color (POC) cannot be racist, as they are not part of the racist power structure
2. Asking “where are you from?” is a “micro aggression” rooted in racism because it is “otherizing” a person with a different appearance from the majority
3. A white person disliking an individual of a different race is assumed to be because of racism (conscious or subconscious) rather than merely the dislike people have for another person all the time
4. “Nonwhite” is a label rooted in racism, as it sees all different races through the (racist) Eurocentric lense
5. Math is racist because… I cannot comprehend why…
5. Punctuality, hard work, etc. are aspects of “whiteness”, and therefor is racist to expect from all people
That’s just from the top of my head right now. Hence, precisely why I pose question 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Would you be willing and able to:
1. Define racism
2. Explain where that definition is widely accepted
3. Posit examples of persons in power and systems worldwide who/which do not fit that definition (are NOT racist)?
Created:
Biden is the best POTUS that communist China ever had.
What they say is true: elections have consequences…
Created:
Posted in:
Censoring the Biden story: How social media becomes state media
“… Either way, this was major news.
The response of Twitter and Facebook, however, was to shut it all down. Major media companies also imposed a virtual blackout on the allegations. It didn’t matter that thousands of emails were available for review or that the Bidens did not directly address the material. It was all declared to be fake news.
…At the same time, we are seeing a rejection of journalistic objectivity in favor of activism. The New York Times apologized for publishing a column by a conservative U.S. senator on using national guardsmen to quell rioting — yet it later published a column by a Chinese official called “Beijing’s enforcer” who is crushing protests in Hong Kong. The media spent years publishing every wacky theory of alleged Trump-Russia collusion; thousands of articles detailed allegations from the Steele dossier, which has been not only discredited but also shown to be based on material from a known Russian agent.”
Nothing to see here, folks…
Created:
Posted in:
Biden has payed a lot of lip service to promoting national unity. Here is video of a reporter asking him about just that:
Kudos to this reporter for asking about such an important issue and for doing so PRIOR to the election. Negative kudos, however, for MSM allowing this rambling excuse for an answer to flow past like water under a bridge with little to no attention. Am I mistaken?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ah, right. Well, Bill Maher has usually been his own man regarding political platforms. He has long veered from left orthodoxy particularly in eschewing political correctness (humor is the first casualty of PC) and Islam apologetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Consistent in its failure to report events objectively, the mainstream media has long since lost all credibility. It has become the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and will not report anything that might adversely affect that party’s chances at maintaining power.
Counselor, these are very serious charges. The mainstream media (MSM) has rights and is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are you prepared to defend these charges in the Court of Debateart.com Politics Forum, the Honorable Ramshutu presiding? Double R will be the counsel for the defense. The winner of this case will be able to declare that the loser holds an invalid opinion out of sheer stubborn will and with insufficient evidence.
What say you, Counselor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?”
Again, this was the (honest) question I posed to you. You gave a comprehensive response, yes, but none of it answered any part of the question. I could ask you to reread my question, offer greater clarity, or even offer my answer to it… but I get the idea that would be futile at this point.
I think we have different objectives here:
Me: “This is my opinion, and this is why I feel this way. If you disagree, why (ie feel free to expand upon your disagreement)?
You: “Your opinion is unreasonable/wrong/invalid, and I won’t be satisfied until you admit to being wrong, or I have logically proven you wrong in this forum, the court of debateart.com. Recant, or I will proceed to demolish every point you bring up!”
You may not have realized this, but I haven’t been trying to convince you that your opinion is “wrong.” (Opinion doesn’t entail correctness/incorrectness unless the underlying facts involved are misunderstood, or worse, completely fabricated). I have merely been explaining to you why I hold my opinion in spite of your direct protests. I’m not going for “the win” as you seem to be.
In conclusion, I’m confident we could go back and forth in perpetuity to no avail here. Our perspectives are simply different. Human nature and the nation’s political polarization exemplified.
If you happen to work in news journalism, you have the distinct satisfaction of working with like-minded people with like-minded objectives. If you do not work in news journalism, you have my gratitude…
If you happen to work in news journalism, you have the distinct satisfaction of working with like-minded people with like-minded objectives. If you do not work in news journalism, you have my gratitude…
Created: