• 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.
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