• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
metwannabe said:
Exactly. I've seen more people influenced by a biased agenda driven media than any rhetoric from any politician. Especially the youth of our day. It's not even close and I get tired if being told I'm "controlled" or his lapdog. I'm a free thinker not swayed by words but actions.
Click to expand...
To add to this, is it any wonder that communist countries control the media? They know the best way to control the people.
 
metwannabe said:
Exactly. I've seen more people influenced by a biased agenda driven media than any rhetoric from any politician. Especially the youth of our day. It's not even close and I get tired if being told I'm "controlled" or his lapdog. I'm a free thinker not swayed by words but actions.
Click to expand...
Yes... they all think they are free thinkers but they have been naive to think this because the Democrats stand for all their pet social causes.
 
metwannabe said:
Exactly. I've seen more people influenced by a biased agenda driven media than any rhetoric from any politician. Especially the youth of our day. It's not even close and I get tired of being told I'm "controlled" or his lapdog. I'm a free thinker not swayed by words but actions.
Click to expand...
The same folks that call you a lap dog cant seem to do it without linking to something they found on the internet that does it for them......
 
metwannabe said:
Exactly. I've seen more people influenced by a biased agenda driven media than any rhetoric from any politician. Especially the youth of our day. It's not even close and I get tired of being told I'm "controlled" or his lapdog. I'm a free thinker not swayed by words but actions.
Click to expand...
Funny you'd bring up the youth which includes college students like me. What's even funnier is that a lot of us hate both the media and the political environment. We around here at least dislike politics and are turned off by it. We're disgusted by what our country has become politically and are tired of being told by the older generation that their ways of politics are greater. Unfortunately not many of us can easily politically align with a particular candidate since they're so far out from what we want. We're stuck choosing whoever is closest to what we believe in. That's where you get the people who go to Bernie because they wanted a political change but were too blinded to realize how much he'd cost our nation. Then you have people like me who have to choose Trump but regret it because his actions aren't paving a bright road for our futures and are instead kicking the can down the road instead of helping teach the next generation how to be great Americans who can stand on their own. Yes Trump and generally conservative politicians support the working class, but if you're not already in it you're not provided a way to get in and often fall out of line and can't make it. The liberals are just as bad because they're taking advantage of younger people by promising them things they never deliver on. It's just a bad political environment for us until our generation gets into the political field. Sorry for the rant, but please don't talk about "how the youth feel" when you're not one yourself.
 
ForsythSnow said:
Funny you'd bring up the youth which includes college students like me. What's even funnier is that a lot of us hate both the media and the political environment. We around here at least dislike politics and are turned off by it. We're disgusted by what our country has become politically and are tired of being told by the older generation that their ways of politics are greater. Unfortunately not many of us can easily politically align with a particular candidate since they're so far out from what we want. We're stuck choosing whoever is closest to what we believe in. That's where you get the people who go to Bernie because they wanted a political change but were too blinded to realize how much he'd cost our nation. Then you have people like me who have to choose Trump but regret it because his actions aren't paving a bright road for our futures and are instead kicking the can down the road instead of helping teach the next generation how to be great Americans who can stand on their own. Yes Trump and generally conservative politicians support the working class, but if you're not already in it you're not provided a way to get in and often fall out of line and can't make it. The liberals are just as bad because they're taking advantage of younger people by promising them things they never deliver on. It's just a bad political environment for us until our generation gets into the political field. Sorry for the rant, but please don't talk about "how the youth feel" when you're not one yourself.
Click to expand...
Lol I guess having been a youth once doesn't count, ok but don't forget I have 2 college kids of my own so I have some inside knowledge.
 
metwannabe said:
Lol I guess having been a youth once doesn't count, ok but don't forget I have 2 college kids of my own so I have some inside knowledge.
Click to expand...
Youth are different from generation to generation. Each have a different political view that they affiliate with given the times. As far as having 2 college kids, do you know how exactly they feel about the political environment or who or what they support? That is if they are vocal or not about it because they could either be silent about it or not be. Also note I said "around here" referring to those who I know around my age and others around my campus. It might be a different demographic than up in your area.
 
It’s foolish to think that Trump’s persistent attacks on the media is without purpose or effect. Sure, the media is biased—I get that. They don’t give conservatives a fair shake. I get that. We all get that.

But persistent combativeness and anti-media rhetoric is dangerous. Failure to acknowledge this is failure to learn from history.
 
One of the many dangerous consequences is seen in this thread: some supporters of the president behave as if it’s un-American to criticize the president. Just like so many are quick to trash people who refuse to stand for the national anthem. I always stand, but I always thought that part of what makes American great is the freedom of expression. The moment we force people and the moment we forbid criticizing the president is the moment we become fascists or communists.
 
Poimen said:
It’s foolish to think that Trump’s persistent attacks on the media is without purpose or effect. Sure, the media is biased—I get that. They don’t give conservatives a fair shake. I get that. We all get that.

But persistent combativeness and anti-media rhetoric is dangerous. Failure to acknowledge this is failure to learn from history.
Click to expand...
What history are we to learn from where there was a danger from anti-media rhetoric? Have there been great catastrophes from people refusing to believe the media? It seems like history brings to mind many more examples of the opposite.
 
People are railing against the press now because many TV outlets are no longer carrying the daily briefings.
I had my fill of the briefings about a week ago. It’s gross. The president walks out there and pats himself on the back for 15-20 minutes without any real substance. Then every single person who comes to the podium first thanks the president for his brilliant leadership—they are kissing the ring of the king and they are forced too. It’s absolute gross.
 
weatherfide said:
What history are we to learn from where there was a danger from anti-media rhetoric? Have there been great catastrophes from people refusing to believe the media? It seems like history brings to mind many more examples of the opposite.
Click to expand...
1930s Germany is a good place to begin.
 
Poimen said:
One of the many dangerous consequences is seen in this thread: some supporters of the president behave as if it’s un-American to criticize the president. Just like so many are quick to trash people who refuse to stand for the national anthem. I always stand, but I always thought that part of what makes American great is the freedom of expression. The moment we force people and the moment we forbid criticizing the president is the moment we become fascists or communists.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone forced to not criticize on here. This place is nothing but criticism.
 
It's just too easy to pick Bernie apart, at least at this time. Oh he'd be a change alright, but his change seems like it'd regularly cost the amount of money we're going to see printed with the pandemic, not just a one time thing.

That's why some of the whining about how Biden has no chance makes me laugh (which if I want to see, I can simply take a stroll through some reddit posts). If Biden has no chance, Bernie probably gets crushed even worse once we start talking about how much M4A and other policies will regularly cost. That does not mean that some of his ideas may not seem appealing as they do, but it'd cost a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Truthfully, both might have been bad picks on the democratic side. But I've just seen too much with M4A and it'd take quite a bit of convincing for me to make me like the idea of it even down the road.
 
ForsythSnow said:
Funny you'd bring up the youth which includes college students like me. What's even funnier is that a lot of us hate both the media and the political environment. We around here at least dislike politics and are turned off by it. We're disgusted by what our country has become politically and are tired of being told by the older generation that their ways of politics are greater. Unfortunately not many of us can easily politically align with a particular candidate since they're so far out from what we want. We're stuck choosing whoever is closest to what we believe in. That's where you get the people who go to Bernie because they wanted a political change but were too blinded to realize how much he'd cost our nation. Then you have people like me who have to choose Trump but regret it because his actions aren't paving a bright road for our futures and are instead kicking the can down the road instead of helping teach the next generation how to be great Americans who can stand on their own. Yes Trump and generally conservative politicians support the working class, but if you're not already in it you're not provided a way to get in and often fall out of line and can't make it. The liberals are just as bad because they're taking advantage of younger people by promising them things they never deliver on. It's just a bad political environment for us until our generation gets into the political field. Sorry for the rant, but please don't talk about "how the youth feel" when you're not one yourself.
Click to expand...
Don't take this the wrong way my man but many of us have already been young! Some of us have seen our 30's, some our 40's and Im sure some go into the 60's and maybe the 70's. Hell its not you fault you are young. You don't get to be middle aged or even old without being young first. Im sure some of the older generation do believe their way is the only right way. Is that true? Of course not......When I was 18 I respected my elders 100%. I was the child of a Vietnam vet. I spent most of my life at war and I don't get through it if I hadn't taken the lessons I learned to heart. I don't think the youth of today in general has any respect whatsoever for their elder statesmen. If I'm wrong and they do, they have an odd way of showing it...…(again no offense to you personally)

We may not have the answers you seek but we do have at the very least, experience to offer good or bad
 
weatherfide said:
You mean the media that was used by Joseph Goebbels to usher in the Nazi’s? That’s an example of why people SHOULD always question the media!!!!
Click to expand...
No. One of the tools used by Hitler was to convince the German people that the press was untrustworthy.

And I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler per se. All I’m saying is there are parallels. Keep in mind, the Nazis were nationalists and they basically said, Let’s make Germany great again.”

The Nazis were able to tap into a natural national pride and exploit it for their own agenda.

I’m not suggesting the same dire consequences here because we do have a free press in our constitution—which is exactly why our founders insisted on a free press.

The president has tapped into something he knows about how many feel about the press and he is using it for his own agenda. This is why we should defend the press more than attack it.
 
Poimen said:
It’s foolish to think that Trump’s persistent attacks on the media is without purpose or effect. Sure, the media is biased—I get that. They don’t give conservatives a fair shake. I get that. We all get that.

But persistent combativeness and anti-media rhetoric is dangerous. Failure to acknowledge this is failure to learn from history.
Click to expand...

If Trump has done one thing great it is to convince his base that the MSM is out to get him and that everything they say about him is lies.....or that anything that happens that makes him look bad is a plot by them to overthrow him as the MSM is controlled by the deep state or Dems or Illuminati or whoever.

The thing that kills me is all the Trumpers here poo poo almost every link from a reputable news source and then turn around and use some far right wing blogger, or place like OAN, Brietbart, the Blaze etc as the "true" of version of events, when 90% of that crap is conjecture/opinion or flat out fake news......it would be funny if it wasnt so sad. Trump has done a good job of brainwashing his base to only believe him and to assume everything the MSM says about him is a lie.....
 
Downeastnc said:
If Trump has done one thing great it is to convince his base that the MSM is out to get him and that everything they say about him is lies.....or that anything that happens that makes him look bad is a plot by them to overthrow him as the MSM is controlled by the deep state or Dems or Illuminati or whoever.

The thing that kills me is all the Trumpers here poo poo almost every link from a reputable news source and then turn around and use some far right wing blogger, or place like OAN, Brietbart, the Blaze etc as the "true" of version of events, when 90% of that crap is conjecture/opinion or flat out fake news......it would be funny if it wasnt so sad. Trump has done a good job of brainwashing his base to only believe him and to assume everything the MSM says about him is a lie.....
Click to expand...
I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. What are the reputable sources that you believe are truthful and least biased?

I support personal freedom and limited government and the Constitution of the U.S. I don't like government control of large sections of the economy. I hate communism and it's little bastard sister, socialism.

I'd consider voting for Biden if Tulsi was his VP. There's a half decent chance that Biden won't make it through his first term, if he's elected.
 
Downeastnc said:
If Trump has done one thing great it is to convince his base that the MSM is out to get him and that everything they say about him is lies.....or that anything that happens that makes him look bad is a plot by them to overthrow him as the MSM is controlled by the deep state or Dems or Illuminati or whoever.

The thing that kills me is all the Trumpers here poo poo almost every link from a reputable news source and then turn around and use some far right wing blogger, or place like OAN, Brietbart, the Blaze etc as the "true" of version of events, when 90% of that crap is conjecture/opinion or flat out fake news......it would be funny if it wasnt so sad. Trump has done a good job of brainwashing his base to only believe him and to assume everything the MSM says about him is a lie.....
Click to expand...
Its all opinion dude......You wake up in the morning, find your daily negative Trump hit piece, you believe it (which is your choice), you link it, and it gets poo poo'd (our choice). Reputable is in the eye of the beholder and it is still "opinion"...…...but we are the ones who are brainwashed?

Reason why I rarely if ever link anything. I prefer to offer up my own opinion
 
weatherfide said:
I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way. What are the reputable sources that you believe are truthful and least biased?

I support personal freedom and limited government and the Constitution of the U.S. I don't like government control of large sections of the economy. I hate communism and it's little bastard sister, socialism.

I'd consider voting for Biden if Tulsi was his VP. There's a half decent chance that Biden won't make it through his first term, if he's elected.
Click to expand...
Biden is going to pick a black woman for his VP. The left cant let go of identity politics
 
Downeastnc said:
If Trump has done one thing great it is to convince his base that the MSM is out to get him and that everything they say about him is lies.....or that anything that happens that makes him look bad is a plot by them to overthrow him as the MSM is controlled by the deep state or Dems or Illuminati or whoever.

The thing that kills me is all the Trumpers here poo poo almost every link from a reputable news source and then turn around and use some far right wing blogger, or place like OAN, Brietbart, the Blaze etc as the "true" of version of events, when 90% of that crap is conjecture/opinion or flat out fake news......it would be funny if it wasnt so sad. Trump has done a good job of brainwashing his base to only believe him and to assume everything the MSM says about him is a lie.....
Click to expand...

This constant obsession with giving credence and evidentiary authority to negligently written news article is laughable to me.

A lot of "reputable" news sources lazily copy articles that are provided by press related associations, and utilize those reports without verifying the original source of the article. For example, the false content within the Covington Catholic story was syndicated throughout the Associated Press, and multiple news sources like the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, and MSNBC falsely reported the story without doing any type of due diligence. A day after the story, I had already saw the video contradicting the false information and narrative of the "reputable" news sources. Many refused to retract their false statements, and consequently, CNN was forced to settle a libel suit with the teenager cause the judge determine that the claims were valid enough for the discovery phase of the litigation.

Also, many of these of these "reputable" news sources utilize hearsay evidence from un-named sources in support of their anti-Trump stories, and these sources often depend on difficult-to-verify conjecture to support their statements. These stories are syndicated throughout the media despite none of them verifying the legitimacy of the source. This once a very limited practice among the media, but it has now become a daily standard since Trump was elected.

Making matters worse, the so-called "reputable" sources often ignore actual physical evidence that is reported online by right-wing, international and "alternative" sources that contradict their narrative. For instance, Earlier this year, I posted verified documents from Ukrainian and Latvian news and official record sources evidencing the Biden abusive a power scandal that detail the connection between Hunter Biden as well as Biden political and business associates, and the business relationship between the oil company in Ukraine. I have an e-mail and official statement showing company representatives using Biden political influences to help them out with the prosecution in Ukraine, and admission that they put out false stories int he press to attack the attorney general of Ukraine. The "reputable" media continues to report that there is no evidence that Biden abused his power by having the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to help out his son, even though these documents have been translated in english for everyone to view. They simply ignore it. It's completely negligent.

I'd agree with you if there weren't hundreds of times over the last four years that I hadn't found credible physical evidence contradicting media reports. I stopped trusting the media after they lied us into Iraq. As someone that has worked in law for 6 years, I've learned that media sources are often the worst kind of evidence, and have read numerous articles about cases that provide false information (many times multiple false statements) about a particular litigation that is easily rebutted by ACTUALLY REPUTABLE, official court documents. 100% of the time they leave out important information disputing the claims of the side the author prefers. It's systematic negligence.
 
Sandbar said:
Its all opinion dude......You wake up in the morning, find your daily negative Trump hit piece, you believe it (which is your choice), you link it, and it gets poo poo'd (our choice). Reputable is in the eye of the beholder and it is still "opinion"...…...but we are the ones who are brainwashed?

Reason why I rarely if ever link anything. I prefer to offer up my own opinion
Click to expand...
Truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
 
Tornadocane said:
This constant obsession with giving credence and evidentiary authority to negligently written news article is laughable to me.

A lot of "reputable" news sources lazily copy articles that are provided by press related associations, and utilize those reports without verifying the original source of the article. For example, the false content within the Covington Catholic story was syndicated throughout the Associated Press, and multiple news sources like the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, and MSNBC falsely reported the story without doing any type of due diligence. A day after the story, I had already saw the video contradicting the false information and narrative of the "reputable" news sources. Many refused to retract their false statements, and consequently, CNN was forced to settle a libel suit with the teenager cause the judge determine that the claims were valid enough for the discovery phase of the litigation.

Also, many of these of these "reputable" news sources utilize hearsay evidence from un-named sources in support of their anti-Trump stories, and these sources often depend on difficult-to-verify conjecture to support their statements. These stories are syndicated throughout the media despite none of them verifying the legitimacy of the source. This once a very limited practice among the media, but it has now become a daily standard since Trump was elected.

Making matters worse, the so-called "reputable" sources often ignore actual physical evidence that is reported online by right-wing, international and "alternative" sources that contradict their narrative. For instance, Earlier this year, I posted verified documents from Ukrainian and Latvian news and official record sources evidencing the Biden abusive a power scandal that detail the connection between Hunter Biden as well as Biden political and business associates, and the business relationship between the oil company in Ukraine. I have an e-mail and official statement showing company representatives using Biden political influences to help them out with the prosecution in Ukraine, and admission that they put out false stories int he press to attack the attorney general of Ukraine. The "reputable" media continues to report that there is no evidence that Biden abused his power by having the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to help out his son, even though these documents have been translated in english for everyone to view. They simply ignore it. It's completely negligent.

I'd agree with you if there weren't hundreds of times over the last four years that I hadn't found credible physical evidence contradicting media reports. I stopped trusting the media after they lied us into Iraq. As someone that has worked in law for 6 years, I've learned that media sources are often the worst kind of evidence, and have read numerous articles about cases that provide false information (many times multiple false statements) about a particular litigation that is easily rebutted by ACTUALLY REPUTABLE, official court documents. 100% of the time they leave out important information disputing the claims of the side the author prefers. It's systematic negligence.
Click to expand...
And you win the award for longest post of the year. Congrats !
 
Sandbar said:
Truth is absolutely in the eye of the beholder. I put a bullet in the head of many terrorist who believed 100% that the cause they died for was based in truth. I disagreed. Which one of us was actually right?
Click to expand...

Truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
 
Sandbar said:
Truth is absolutely in the eye of the beholder. I put a bullet in the head of many terrorist who believed 100% that the cause they died for was based in truth. I disagreed. Which one of us was actually right?
Click to expand...
If truth is in the eye of the beholder as you say, then what gives you the right to shoot the terrorist in the head? According to you, they’re acting on how the see truth. If you really believe what you are saying, what give you the right to shoot them in the head?
 
Poimen said:
Truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Again right on point......there are truths and beliefs, there are 3 sides to every story usually, the left's side, the right's side and the truth. Look at the responses to my post.....the only truths are from Trump and the right.....the shear number of lies Trump tells is astounding, he "misspeaks" constantly and contradicts himself sometimes in the same dang sentence.....its a little unnerving to see some of the FB post I get from family and friends sometimes that are just so wrong and nothing you can tell them will change their minds and any evidence to the contrary is just deep state or Dem lies to make Trump look bad.....to call them cult like is not far from the mark, they are literally brainwashed against any negative news towards Trump.....you see it here even, post that make Trump look bad are attacked even when they are completely accurate.
 
Poimen said:
If truth is in the eye of the beholder as you say, then what gives you the right to shoot the terrorist in the head? According to you, they’re acting on how the see truth. If you really believe what you are saying, what give you the right to shoot them in the head?
Click to expand...
2 people both think they are justified to kill one another based on what we believe is correct (The Truth). Obviously I am the only one who can answer the question. I saw the truth through the eyes of the United States government (and I agreed with it 100%). Homies saw it through the eyes of jihad and I am guessing they believed in it 100%. Its really not that complicated.
 
Sandbar said:
2 people both think they are justified to kill one another based on what we believe is correct (The Truth). Obviously I am the only one who can answer the question. I saw the truth through the eyes of the United States government (and I agreed with it 100%). Homies saw it through the eyes of jihad and I am guessing they believed in it 100%. Its really not that complicated.
Click to expand...
That’s not how “truth is in the eye of the beholder” works. You are saying that truth is relative and is defined by individuals. Plenty of people believe that in our society, but the actions you describe are not indicative of said belief. If you really believe what you say, then you would have to admit that you have no right to kill the terrorist based on how the terrorist defines truth. After all, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Basically, you are arguing that there is no such thing as truth.
 
To be far less eloquent I would say if trump asked his believers/supporters to eat dog crap every day for the next 3 weeks a large % of them would only question if they need to use a fork or a spoon.
 
Poimen said:
That’s not how “truth is in the eye of the beholder” works. You are saying that truth is relative and is defined by individuals. Plenty of people believe that in our society, but the actions you describe are not indicative of said belief. If you really believe what you say, then you would have to admit that you have no right to kill the terrorist based on how the terrorist defines truth. After all, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Basically, you are arguing that there is no such thing as truth.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is that the actual truth is meaningless. If I think 80 degrees is hot and you think 80 degrees is cold who is right? What is the truth? Its in the eye of the beholder just like I said!
 
Sandbar said:
What I am saying is that the actual truth is meaningless. If I think 80 degrees is hot and you think 80 degrees is cold who is right? What is the truth? Its in the eye of the beholder just like I said!
Click to expand...
No. You are talking about opinions, not truth. Say it with me very slowly: Truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
 
Poimen said:
No. You are talking about opinions, not truth. Say it with me very slowly: Truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
LOL......I might as well just bang my friggin head against the wall. I see the truth through my eyes how I choose to see it. Fair enough?
 
Sandbar said:
LOL......I might as well just bang my friggin head against the wall. I see the truth through my eyes how I choose to see it. Fair enough?
Click to expand...
No. In the example you use, the thermometer is the standard of truth. Someone thinks it’s hot or cold is opinion, not truth.

just because the US government says the terrorist is bad doesn’t mean it’s true. You and I may agree, but that’s not what makes it true.
 
Poimen said:
No. In the example you use, the thermometer is the standard of truth. Someone thinks it’s hot or cold is opinion, not truth.

just because the US government says the terrorist is bad doesn’t mean it’s true. You and I may agree, but that’s not what makes it true.
Click to expand...
Its called perception...….How we interpret the truth through our belief systems or even our senses. Doesn't matter if we are both right or both wrong. Its what we perceive to be the truth
 
To bring this discussion about "truth" back to the conversation, I think the big question is "does the media report the truth?" or as we stated before, "can we trust the media to report the truth without bias"? I think we can all agree that most media outlets, certainly CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, etc., are very biased in their reporting. They report some truth and leave out important pieces to spin the perception in their favor. They report hearsay and opinions as though they have the same weight as factual sources.

A large percentage of media companies and the people that work for them support socialist and Marxist "leftist" ideology. That is why I detest the media and do not trust the media. You have to learn to find the facts in multiple reports and then piece the "truth" together for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top