Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Trying to throw it on ignorance doesn't make it any better. And again with the handwaving, you think people don't know anything about this but are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism when most Americans have only the most basic of grasps of those concepts heavily influenced by what they think it means? Hell people think this is capitalism, when pure capitalism is so different. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too between polls.

I never actually claimed that most Americans are qualified to speak on the pros and cons of capitalism vs socialism. Though I would argue that these concepts are actually very easy to understand and you'd be hard pressed to find an American that doesn't have a basic understanding of these ideologies. Heck - I wouldn't even call myself qualified to argue it. I prefer capitalism because it works and has spawned the greatest era of success the world has ever known. All socialism does is fail. That is all you really need to know to answer the question.

Thank you for proving my point, because this already completely ignores the basic reality that capitalism is tempered and restrained by socialism in modern society. Declaring capitalism to be the winner and socialism a failure when modern society got to this point of succes by mixing the two shows its not easy to understand. People think its easy to understand, but 5 seconds on google is going to help people understand a term like enemy of the people far better than even the basics of either pure socioeconomic system or what a better mix might be.

I'm still amazed that somehow they have the awareness to link socialism to the evil commies and the bad stuff they did (as you seem to be indicating), but are completely ignorant on one of the infamous terms evil commies, among others, threw around. 51% of Republicans just found it ok to use that kind of language, which should be worrying.

Lets put this socialism vs capitalism thing to rest. Socialism takes so much credit for things that just automatically happen in democracy over time. I don't give it credit for that.

Anyways. You seem to think "the media" is a really important thing in democracy. I'd argue that "the media" has become a pretty shallow thing. It's a sell out to advertisers and click bait. It pushes agendas and seeks more to humiliate opponents of those agendas than actually report interesting or important news. It's is often very dishonest as well - on both sides. I hate having the feeling that I am being tricked into believing something untrue and it's a feeling a lot of people get when they are watching any kind of mainstream media these days. It is really no surprise that people might see "the media" as enemy in their mind. I'd argue if something is trying to control your mind, your thoughts - it probably is your enemy. With how slanted the leftist agenda is pushed in the mainstream media - if "the conservative agenda" is something is important to you - I can understand why you would answer the question that way too.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Not to mention that in science, if your underlying assumptions and what question you're answering are incorrect (not to mention your calculations), you get crucified.
From political polls on the other hand, one usually only sees the results, rarely the questions asked or the calculations used to get the results. When I do see the questions that were asked they tend to be overly binary or between nonsensical options a lot of the time. Like the above discussion point where the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy. Completely binary and hence utterly useless except as a scare tactic to divide people.

On the other hand, sometimes you ask the right questions, using the right underlying assumptions, doing the right calculations, and come to the right conclusions only to be crucified. However, that's usually when politics and science have some intersectionality.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

How can you compare this to that? Targeting your opponents with the IRS is actual misuse of power. Removing a security clearance you don't need anymore which has a natural process to remove. The two things shouldn't be discussed in the same light. Brennan is a known leaker of information - it was totally justified anyways.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lets put this socialism vs capitalism thing to rest. Socialism takes so much credit for things that just automatically happen in democracy over time. I don't give it credit for that.

Anyways. You seem to think "the media" is a really important thing in democracy. I'd argue that "the media" has become a pretty shallow thing. It's a sell out to advertisers and click bait. It pushes agendas and seeks more to humiliate opponents of those agendas than actually report interesting or important news. It's is often very dishonest as well - on both sides. I hate having the feeling that I am being tricked into believing something untrue and it's a feeling a lot of people get when they are watching any kind of mainstream media these days. It is really no surprise that people might see "the media" as enemy in their mind. I'd argue if something is trying to control your mind, your thoughts - it probably is your enemy. With how slanted the leftist agenda is pushed in the mainstream media - if "the conservative agenda" is something is important to you - I can understand why you would answer the question that way too.

You got it the wrong way around, democracy forces socialist aspects on society, that's voters leaning more towards socialism, because people expect a certain livable standard. Democracy enables socialist ideas and policies, by peaceful means, but that is not to the credit of democracy, that is to the credit of those people fighting for those rights and socialist ideas. Pure capitalism isn't interested in democracy. Those things don't automatically happen, people died during the 19th and 20th century to give you the things you take for granted. If the voting population was 100% libertarian you wouldn't nearly have this many socialist leaning policies for example. This is what I mean by basic understanding.

Media is important and not all have cynically collapsed into click bait. That's the issue, once again everything is thrown on that big heap of it all being bad. People are allowed to be critical, the problem is that the people complaining about liberal bias in the media just as happily turn on Fox News. They have retreated into a self contained world view where facts don't matter and those that speak ill of dear leader are the enemy of the people. Look at independents and democrats, the belief is much more on the fringe there as should be expected, even though a decent chunk of independents also lean conservative. So where does that large gap come from? Its years and years of being spoon fed a world view that is allergic to anything exposing the flaws. I know a majority of Republicans consider the media biased and in essence its going to lean more towards its key demographics as opinions shift. Its not surprising that when society is trending more toward the left the media crawls along. But that doesn't and shouldn't lead to Trump rethoric that is dictator light in tone.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Not to mention that in science, if your underlying assumptions and what question you're answering are incorrect (not to mention your calculations), you get crucified.
From political polls on the other hand, one usually only sees the results, rarely the questions asked or the calculations used to get the results. When I do see the questions that were asked they tend to be overly binary or between nonsensical options a lot of the time. Like the above discussion point where the media is either an enemy of the people or a foundation of democracy. Completely binary and hence utterly useless except as a scare tactic to divide people.

On the other hand, sometimes you ask the right questions, using the right underlying assumptions, doing the right calculations, and come to the right conclusions only to be crucified. However, that's usually when politics and science have some intersectionality.

Both sides guilty of willfully ignoring science here. Right ignores global warming and it's undeniable science and the left ignores gender and racial studies - both because they don't like the conclusions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lets put this socialism vs capitalism thing to rest. Socialism takes so much credit for things that just automatically happen in democracy over time. I don't give it credit for that.

Anyways. You seem to think "the media" is a really important thing in democracy. I'd argue that "the media" has become a pretty shallow thing. It's a sell out to advertisers and click bait. It pushes agendas and seeks more to humiliate opponents of those agendas than actually report interesting or important news. It's is often very dishonest as well - on both sides. I hate having the feeling that I am being tricked into believing something untrue and it's a feeling a lot of people get when they are watching any kind of mainstream media these days. It is really no surprise that people might see "the media" as enemy in their mind. I'd argue if something is trying to control your mind, your thoughts - it probably is your enemy. With how slanted the leftist agenda is pushed in the mainstream media - if "the conservative agenda" is something is important to you - I can understand why you would answer the question that way too.

You got it the wrong way around, democracy forces socialist aspects on society, that's voters leaning more towards socialism, because people expect a certain livable standard. Democracy enables socialist ideas and policies, by peaceful means, but that is not to the credit of democracy, that is to the credit of those people fighting for those rights and socialist ideas. Pure capitalism isn't interested in democracy. Those things don't automatically happen, people died during the 19th and 20th century to give you the things you take for granted. If the voting population was 100% libertarian you wouldn't nearly have this many socialist leaning policies for example. This is what I mean by basic understanding.

Media is important and not all have cynically collapsed into click bait. That's the issue, once again everything is thrown on that big heap of it all being bad. People are allowed to be critical, the problem is that the people complaining about liberal bias in the media just as happily turn on Fox News. They have retreated into a self contained world view where facts don't matter and those that speak ill of dear leader are the enemy of the people. Look at independents and democrats, the belief is much more on the fringe there as should be expected, even though a decent chunk of independents also lean conservative. So where does that large gap come from? Its years and years of being spoon fed a world view that is allergic to anything exposing the flaws.

I'd argue that both sides are equally affected by this isolated world view you speak-off. I think it is the result of media. It's not a free media. We have a democratic sponsored one and a conservative sponsored one. These are where the world views come from.

Hey trump actually did something remotely sensible. Cancelled the parade. Not sure are fighter planes best alternative target for money but better than parade

 Xenomancers wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

How can you compare this to that? Targeting your opponents with the IRS is actual misuse of power. Removing a security clearance you don't need anymore which has a natural process to remove. The two things shouldn't be discussed in the same light. Brennan is a known leaker of information - it was totally justified anyways.

He's literally targeting his critics.

I'd argue it's the same thing.

As a practical matter, there are arguments for rescinding Brennan's (and others) security clearance.... in fact, I'd argue that he should've immediately lose it once out of government (ie, Jan. 21st 2017). But, like much of the Trump administration's past actions, it's done in such a naked manner and currently only focused on his critics.

They'd have much more room to stand on had they orchestrated a non-partisan committee pulled from the ranks of the intelligence community to make such determination.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lets put this socialism vs capitalism thing to rest. Socialism takes so much credit for things that just automatically happen in democracy over time. I don't give it credit for that.

Anyways. You seem to think "the media" is a really important thing in democracy. I'd argue that "the media" has become a pretty shallow thing. It's a sell out to advertisers and click bait. It pushes agendas and seeks more to humiliate opponents of those agendas than actually report interesting or important news. It's is often very dishonest as well - on both sides. I hate having the feeling that I am being tricked into believing something untrue and it's a feeling a lot of people get when they are watching any kind of mainstream media these days. It is really no surprise that people might see "the media" as enemy in their mind. I'd argue if something is trying to control your mind, your thoughts - it probably is your enemy. With how slanted the leftist agenda is pushed in the mainstream media - if "the conservative agenda" is something is important to you - I can understand why you would answer the question that way too.

You got it the wrong way around, democracy forces socialist aspects on society, that's voters leaning more towards socialism, because people expect a certain livable standard. Democracy enables socialist ideas and policies, by peaceful means, but that is not to the credit of democracy, that is to the credit of those people fighting for those rights and socialist ideas. Pure capitalism isn't interested in democracy. Those things don't automatically happen, people died during the 19th and 20th century to give you the things you take for granted. If the voting population was 100% libertarian you wouldn't nearly have this many socialist leaning policies for example. This is what I mean by basic understanding.

Media is important and not all have cynically collapsed into click bait. That's the issue, once again everything is thrown on that big heap of it all being bad. People are allowed to be critical, the problem is that the people complaining about liberal bias in the media just as happily turn on Fox News. They have retreated into a self contained world view where facts don't matter and those that speak ill of dear leader are the enemy of the people. Look at independents and democrats, the belief is much more on the fringe there as should be expected, even though a decent chunk of independents also lean conservative. So where does that large gap come from? Its years and years of being spoon fed a world view that is allergic to anything exposing the flaws.

I'd argue that both sides are equally affected by this isolated world view you speak-off. I think it is the result of media. It's not a free media. We have a democratic sponsored one and a conservative sponsored one. These are where the world views come from.

No, that is in no way equally affected. There is a fringe and one that is quite visible on one side that wants to live in its own world but gets tempered and brought down by the majority on the left, on the right the fringe has become the majority. The more moderate parts are abandoning ship because its gotten that crazy. The issue exists in both sides of the spectrum, but in no way are they equally affected.

It is a free media, to claim that the is only sponsored by two sides makes little sense, because then the media would be almost equally divided in its bias considering the US electoral population is almost split in half. How does one slightly smaller % have such an incredible dominance of the media then? And the media follows the worldview more than its a trendsetter, the MSM as Trump would say, caters to the majority opinion, as its not financially viable to cater to the fringe for these big corporations. The media is trending left in the US just like in other countries because it follows society. For example we now have an evangelical channel that has a show about people coming out of the closet, that would have been unthinkable two decades ago, but its audience is more accepting now because society changes, it didn't start off the other way around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Hey trump actually did something remotely sensible. Cancelled the parade. Not sure are fighter planes best alternative target for money but better than parade

Well he only did it because he thought DC was trying to rip him off. Also you can buy 1 whole jet fighter for that money

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he only did it because he thought DC was trying to rip him off. Also you can buy 1 whole jet fighter for that money

Yeah well it\s still his 2nd best decision he has had. With that train wreck better than expected.

I don't think the parade was cancelled, only postponed.

Trump did not rule it out next year IF price is lowered. But there's no definite plan to have it.

Oh? Thanks, I didn't realize that.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

The comparisons to events under Obama are disenguous. Between the FBI and the DOJ, the best they could find regarding the IRS scandal was people enforcing rules they didnt understand and use of IRS accounts for personal messages. With respect to Press issues, there were over-reaches in criminal investigations, a couple rather ridiculous that absolutely deserved to be called out and are black marks on Obama's record, but they weren't wholesale attacks on the media as an institution as part of partisan political strategy directed from the top by the President.

 Xenomancers wrote:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/402039-rand-paul-takes-victory-lap-after-brennans-security-clearance

I think he was actually compelled to do it by the most sane member in congress. It was considered for months.

Da comrade, most sane leader

 whembly wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

How can you compare this to that? Targeting your opponents with the IRS is actual misuse of power. Removing a security clearance you don't need anymore which has a natural process to remove. The two things shouldn't be discussed in the same light. Brennan is a known leaker of information - it was totally justified anyways.

He's literally targeting his critics.

I'd argue it's the same thing.

As a practical matter, there are arguments for rescinding Brennan's (and others) security clearance.... in fact, I'd argue that he should've immediately lose it once out of government (ie, Jan. 21st 2017). But, like much of the Trump administration's past actions, it's done in such a naked manner and currently only focused on his critics.

They'd have much more room to stand on had they orchestrated a non-partisan committee pulled from the ranks of the intelligence community to make such determination.

To be fair - everyone is critical of trump - he could pick people at random and it would look like he was targeting his critics. Furthermore - wasn't Rand Paul the man that was really pushing for this? He's been extremely critical of Brennan since 2013 when he had a filibuster in congress to block his appointment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/402039-rand-paul-takes-victory-lap-after-brennans-security-clearance




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

The comparisons to events under Obama are disenguous. Between the FBI and the DOJ, the best they could find regarding the IRS scandal was people enforcing rules they didnt understand and use of IRS accounts for personal messages. With respect to Press issues, there were over-reaches in criminal investigations, a couple rather ridiculous that absolutely deserved to be called out and are black marks on Obama's record, but they weren't wholesale attacks on the media as an institution as part of partisan political strategy directed from the top by the President.

 Xenomancers wrote:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/402039-rand-paul-takes-victory-lap-after-brennans-security-clearance

I think he was actually compelled to do it by the most sane member in congress. It was considered for months.

Da comrade, most sane leader

Radical! He wants to talk to Russian officials that are banned from coming to the US.

Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes...officials who were sanctioned in response to hostile Russian actions...right after Paul's lobbying to remove the clearance of the former CIA head who's warning people about Russia...

I've been saying it for years, the Paul family are a bunch of jokes and honestly Rand shouldn't even be called doctor anymore since it is pretty much a fake accreditation made up by him

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't you think it is more likely that Trump is lashing out at a vocal critic in a way intended to hurt and damage him?

Yes.

Just like it's bad with the Obama administration weaponized the government against their critics (IRS scandal, spying on reporters, spying on congress, etc...).

The comparisons to events under Obama are disenguous. Between the FBI and the DOJ, the best they could find regarding the IRS scandal was people enforcing rules they didnt understand and use of IRS accounts for personal messages.

No that's the spin.

The IRS own IG and Senate Committee reports completely demolishes this spin... and the fact that the IRS had settled the case speaks volume. And not to mention, Lois Lerner's own deposition is under seal because reasons.

With respect to Press issues, there were over-reaches in criminal investigations, a couple rather ridiculous that absolutely deserved to be called out and are black marks on Obama's record, but they weren't wholesale attacks on the media as an institution as part of partisan political strategy directed from the top by the President.

If the press would simply call balls and strikes... and be honest, the Trump admin strikes out plenty... this media #FakeNews narrative would fall flat. However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

Rand Paul seems like the worst kind of attention whore tbh.

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

 Ouze wrote:
Rand Paul seems like the worst kind of attention whore tbh.

Worse than Trump AND Ted Cruz?

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

Its that time of the week again

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

 Ustrello wrote:
Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

...And?

The guy you didn't like won, I'm pretty sure they don't really care about your opinion on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure- with some degree of confidence- that they were certain you weren't going to just be A-OK and throw in your support behind the guy. It was kind of understood that the left was going to be absolutely butthurt over this, and they went with it anyway.

So feel free to keep hurling blame, keep lashing out at people- that's what got Trump there and the right wing has no shortages of other people to elect, just to send you guys spiraling into another rage-fit.

I hope this Derangement Syndrome starts to wrap up in the next few years. I'd like to go back to hearing actual bad news on television, rather than just people whining about it for hours on end.

 Ustrello wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have zero empathy here... the media at large gave Trump billions $ of free airtime to prop him up during the primary...thinking that he'd be Hillary Clinton's easiest opponent during the 2016 election. And once he won the nomination, the media at large switched gears with all the negative reportings. I'm convinced that had the media consistently reported all the legit negative news during the primary campaign... Trump wouldn't been the nominee.

They did. If Trump's own words and lack of policy during the primaries wasn't enough for Republicans to not pick him, then nothing the media said about him, including pointing those out explicitly, would have stopped the Republicans from picking him.

Stop trying to shift the blame for Trump from your political party and voter base onto the media who were reporting on the support that Trump was getting from said voter base.

Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

No.

Trump doesn't happen without the media falling all over themself during the primary to prop of Trump.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

Honestly I ignore most of your articles because 90 percent of the time they refute your position

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

Honestly I ignore most of your articles because 90 percent of the time they refute your position

Ah... so you responded in bad faith.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Trump is 100 percent the fault of the Republican party and its voters full stop, anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous and should not be taken seriously

...And?

The guy you didn't like won, I'm pretty sure they don't really care about your opinion on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure- with some degree of confidence- that they were certain you weren't going to just be A-OK and throw in your support behind the guy. It was kind of understood that the left was going to be absolutely butthurt over this, and they went with it anyway.

So feel free to keep hurling blame, keep lashing out at people- that's what got Trump there and the right wing has no shortages of other people to elect, just to send you guys spiraling into another rage-fit.

I hope this Derangement Syndrome starts to wrap up in the next few years. I'd like to go back to hearing actual bad news on television, rather than just people whining about it for hours on end.

Aka "DEM LIBTARDS MADE US VOTE FER TRUMP"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

However, when much of the media world loses their gak and acts in concert (like the 350 coordinated editorials) that's only keeping this narrative alive.

Do you actually read the articles you link to or just assume people will believe it because there's a linked bit of text?

I'm seriously lost on how responding to attacks on freedom of the press is now some massive conspiracy to attack Great Leader. It's like a glimpse into an alternate reality.

No it is a common whemblism to link articles that demolish his own position because he never reads them or he links a 50+ page article knowing full well people won't read it

...did you guys read it? Hell Ouze argued that it was mistake.

Honestly I ignore most of your articles because 90 percent of the time they refute your position

Ah... so you responded in bad faith.

Can you respond in bad faith to someone who has posted in bad faith for nigh on 8 years?