Isn't Trump, the evidence that America can become Tyrannical at any moment?

[sub_thug]

@sub_thug
@IngaVovchanchyn
@Jack V Savage

I just read just last two and a half pages.

I believe I deserve restitution.

Consider it yours, friend. You may have the thread back

 

[Jack V Savage]

@sub_thug
@IngaVovchanchyn
@Jack V Savage

I just read just last two and a half pages.

I believe I deserve restitution.

Hey, I tried to keep it focused on the issues, but these guys just cannot deal with the idea that the liberal media CT is fake. I think it and the general rejection of independent information sources is pretty fundamental to the right-wing worldview so it feels like an attack to them when someone questions it.

 

[HomerThompson]

I completely agree. That's why I told him earlier on that he needs to put his ego aside. Hubris has caused the fall of many better than him, but that's just the way it goes sometimes. I hope that he can figure out a way to get past it. He's a sharp guy and an otherwise gentleman when he's not being too proud to admit that someone else has a point, but when he decides to bring out that quality, it's not good for him or anyone else.

This entire exchange is why you got a, "Derp." post from me yesterday. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and YOUR hubris has blinded you. If you think there's a liberal bias in mainstream media, then you're a complete moron and a jackass. Stick to being a thug for corporations. It's all you're good for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This entire exchange is why you got a, "Derp." post from me yesterday. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and YOUR hubris has blinded you. If you think there's a liberal bias in mainstream media, then you're a complete moron and a jackass. Stick to being a thug for corporations. It's all you're good for.

The whole thing definitely illustrates the benefits of just responding to derpery with "derp." I still like to hash it out for the benefit of everyone else and to sharpen my own thinking, but you need a willing and able dance partner.

 

[HomerThompson]

The whole thing definitely illustrates the benefits of just responding to derpery with "derp." I still like to hash it out for the benefit of everyone else and to sharpen my own thinking, but you need a willing and able dance partner.

Plenty on here willing, but as far as ability goes...

 

[sub_thug]

This entire exchange is why you got a, "Derp." post from me yesterday. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and YOUR hubris has blinded you. If you think there's a liberal bias in mainstream media, then you're a complete moron and a jackass. Stick to being a thug for corporations. It's all you're good for.

Ah, the fool speaks! Glad to see you're doing well and here to school me up with some of that folksy Kansas wisdom. Banned from using the Rob Ford gifs, are we?

You know, you're an interesting case study in how people adjust to their political environments. If you were to move to Argentina, you would, over time, adopt the viewpoints and attitudes of the Argentinians. It's normally like that wherever you go for all people, and this is pretty well-studied. Occasionally, you will find that people react completely the opposite of how you might expect them to, and I have a theory why. I believe that it really stems from a lack of community that person feels in the area, so when people hold views that are completely counter to their environment, say someone who is hyper-liberal in the middle of Kansas, it could be that those views are actually products born out of resentment for the community than what that person might actually believe on their own. Think my theory holds water?

 

[HomerThompson]

Ah, the fool speaks! Glad to see you're doing well and here to school me up with some of that folksy Kansas wisdom. Banned from using the Rob Ford gifs, are we?

You know, you're an interesting case study in how people adjust to their political environments. If you were to move to Argentina, you would, over time, adopt the viewpoints and attitudes of the Argentinians. It's normally like that wherever you go for all people, and this is pretty well-studied. Occasionally, you will find that people react completely the opposite of how you might expect them to, and I have a theory why. I believe that it really stems from a lack of community that person feels in the area, so when people hold views that are completely counter to their environment, say someone who is hyper-liberal in the middle of Kansas, it could be that those views are actually products born out of resentment for the community than what that person might actually believe on their own. Think my theory holds water?

 

[sub_thug]

And perhaps I struck a little too close to home. I seem to be doing a lot of that today.

 

[HereticBD]

Nice.

And that is exactly my point with Jack when he says 'give me proof'.

What is the point when I know regardless of proof and how much support there is, even if overwhelming he will stand by his opinion as correct regardless. And he has every right to. On matters of opinion 1 person (Jack) can be at odds with all other 7B on the planet and say they stand behind their opinion and that is ok.

But others then need to step away from that person because while it is entirely possible they are the ones right and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong, it certainly is not likely. When you have a guy in the room who always says no matter the weight of the countervailing opinions that 'everyone is wrong but me' you have to accept that person might have such a strong ideological bent or bias that they simply cannot separate themselves from it and analyse things without that bias. I mean the CNN poll linked could not be more clear. Remove the ones who had no view as they don't watch it and its as close to a consensus as you are ever likely to get. And I am sure Jacks response to it 'I am right, all those other people are wrong'.

Funny that Jack accuses @IngaVovchanchyn of that type of bias when I have not seen that from her but i have always seen that from him.

The funny thing about the whole "CNN is biased towards Trump" thing, is that @Jack V Savage himself used to deny ever saying it. He knows he's full of shit, and everything he says to back up his stance now, is a pure troll job because he got busted saying something stupid.

What happened was that he originally stated that CNN favored Trump during the election in some random thread. This was shortly after the election, and I'm sure it was said out of frustration and devastation over Hillary losing, and his world view coming crashing down on him. He didn't actually believe it though. This was proven, because later down the line when people would use it against him, as a point to not take his views on the media seriously, he would deny ever saying it and challenge people to find the quote, and call everyone accusing him of saying it "liars", and play up his usual schtick. Obviously, he believed it was buried among a fuckload of threads and that nobody would be able to retrieve it. Then, one guy did find the quote after they were challenged to do so, and made an ass out him. Ever since then, he's doubled down, and twisted around what he "actually" meant.

The cherry on top, was that he got to a point where he started to deny ever denying saying it. Then he started calling all of those people "dishonest", "immoral", and his usual melodramatic bullshit. Then somebody found a quote of him denying it, and the mental gymnastics to get out of that shit started.

His ever evolving stance regarding that particular topic, and constant shifting narratives, and denials, and labeling of others, sums up his schtick to a fucking tee.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The funny thing about the whole "CNN is biased towards Trump" thing, is that @Jack V Savage himself used to deny ever saying it.

This is a lie, of course.

What happened was that he originally stated that CNN favored Trump during the election in some random thread. This was shortly after the election, and I'm sure it was said out of frustration and devastation over Hillary losing, and his world view coming crashing down on him. He didn't actually believe it though.

Actually, I was calling out some of CNN's unethical coverage decisions as they were happening. The Lewandowski hiring was pretty shocking, as was the live, unedited airing of Trump rallies. And of course the ridiculous overplaying of the email thing. You're running with a bullshit narrative because you have no way to fit the facts I listed here with your CT.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I mean just look at trumps actions then see his delusional fanbase that rationalizes everything he does.


Remember Trump's line about shooting somebody in the street and not losing any votes?



Look at all his Fake News bullshit.....Most people believe that all Mainstream news is 100% fake now.


I honestly think, Trump can come out tomorrow, say that the deep state is controlling America and we need an armed revolution....and his supporters will do it....and even military commanders will follow him....eventually he will have total control of the government with a huge portion of citizens supporting him.



So I don't understand liberals.......Trump is the biggest reason to have an AR-15.

You literally think like a toddler.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ah, the fool speaks! Glad to see you're doing well and here to school me up with some of that folksy Kansas wisdom. Banned from using the Rob Ford gifs, are we?

GF leave you or something? The Heretic Jr. act is new and a bad look for you.

 

[HereticBD]

This is a lie, of course.

<Lmaoo>

Never change, Jack.

 

[MikeMcMann]

...


Now, you're just stamping your foot like a child instead of accepting defeat graciously.

....

^This

Jack' s fallen prey to a vice that makes fools out of the wise: pride. But no, anyone and everyone who disagrees with him must be biased and tribal, but not him.

^and this.

Sorry Jack but even as something as simple as that CNN poll and the general acceptance by almost all talking head pundits that the MSM media tends left of centre you dig in and say 'everyone in the world is wrong but me' and there is no evidence any one can show, no amount of poll data showing you stand nearly alone that will change your mind.

You state you think you are the least partisan person on this forum and yet many see you as arguably the most. You are fine stating your position on Inga and others as proven and if they disagree and say what you are offering is not the proof you say it is you dismiss it but when others give their view on you, you dismiss it as wrong. you want us to accept that you must be right in both instance, because it is you. Sorry but your entire argumentation style is that of a political partisan such that we've seen evolve to deal with the MSM in the last decade. Just simply state your view as if fact. Dismiss other views as if not correct. And let no amount of evidence (poll on MSM) sway you because if it counters your view, say they are all wrong and go back to point 1.

 

[Jack V Savage]

<Lmaoo>

Never change, Jack.

In terms of calling out lies, I never plan to.

Note, again, that no one is able to explain why, if CNN was actually trying to take Trump down, they'd bend normal ethical rules to help him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You state you think you are the least partisan person on this forum and yet many see you as arguably the most. You are fine stating your position on Inga and others as proven and if they disagree and say what you are offering is not the proof you say it is you dismiss it but when others give their view on you, you dismiss it as wrong.

It doesn't even apply to the discussion, does it? My claim is that partisanship is shown when someone abandons their principles in defense of politicians, the way Inga does. Sub Thug is just defining it as holding a position that one party disagrees with (the clear implication of the claims made in this thread is that only partisanship can explain a failure to accept the absurd liberal media CT). But I think we can both agree that that is a poor definition. So where's an example of me ever showing real partisanship?

It's like your position in the Peterson thread. It's not simply that you think you're right because XYZ, and someone else thinks that they are right because ABC; you're insisting that no one can possibly disagree with you, and yet none of the people making the claim can actually defend it reasonably.

 

[sub_thug]

^This
^and this.

Sorry Jack but even as something as simple as that CNN poll and the general acceptance by almost all talking head pundits that the MSM media tends left of centre you dig in and say 'everyone in the world is wrong but me' and there is no evidence any one can show, no amount of poll data showing you stand nearly alone that will change your mind.

You state you think you are the least partisan person on this forum and yet many see you as arguably the most. You are fine stating your position on Inga and others as proven and if they disagree and say what you are offering is not the proof you say it is you dismiss it but when others give their view on you, you dismiss it as wrong. you want us to accept that you must be right in both instance, because it is you. Sorry but your entire argumentation style is that of a political partisan such that we've seen evolve to deal with the MSM in the last decade. Just simply state your view as if fact. Dismiss other views as if not correct. And let no amount of evidence (poll on MSM) sway you because if it counters your view, say they are all wrong and go back to point 1.

The humor is that the gross mischaracterization of my views is precisely the sort of logical fallacy that any number of posters might jump on, and rightly so. The ironies today have been pouring through, somewhat unexpectedly. I’m noticing a major trend across a number of WR posters lately where bitterness is becoming significantly more pronounced. I called a few folks out on it the other day (accusing all conservatives of acting in a purposefully evil manner instead of acting with well-meaning but different manner), but it feels like it’s a matter of trying to save a sinking ship with nothing more than a bucket. I’m starting to really believe that things aren’t going to get better.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The humor is that the gross mischaracterization of my views is precisely the sort of logical fallacy that any number of posters might jump on, and rightly so.

What views of yours do you feel were mischaracterized?

What I'm seeing is that you responded to respectful disagreement with childish personal attacks, and now you're trying to climb on your high horse.

 

[MikeMcMann]

It doesn't even apply to the discussion, does it? My claim is that partisanship is shown when someone abandons their principles in defense of politicians, the way Inga does. Sub Thug is just defining it as holding a position that one party disagrees with (the clear implication of the claims made in this thread is that only partisanship can explain a failure to accept the absurd liberal media CT). But I think we can both agree that that is a poor definition. So where's an example of me ever showing real partisanship?

It's like your position in the Peterson thread. It's not simply that you think you're right because XYZ, and someone else thinks that they are right because ABC; you're insisting that no one can possibly disagree with you, and yet none of the people making the claim can actually defend it reasonably.

Haha, no that is you Jack.

You are the one who sees the CNN poll and says the near consensus is wrong and you are right. Yiou are the one who classifies others position as wrong if they disagree with you as you are doing here int eh classification of Inga's posts which she does not agree with,

I love how you try to deflect and proactive accuse others of everything that you do in thread s thinking maybe you can hide behind that.

Your mischaracterizations in the Jordan Peterson thread, called out by many there, besides me is again proof of that just like the CNN poll. You simply do not care how many disagree with you, you still claim you are right.

I have no doubt that given a poll you would be at the very top of those seen as partisan posters. NO DOUBT. If someone put 10, 20 or 50 names down a list and said check all who in your mind qualify as partisan posters I would bet you would be at the top or near the top of that poll. I also bet you would argue against the results as meaningless. Again everyone but you is wrong.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What views of yours do you feel were mischaracterized?

What I'm seeing is that you responded to respectful disagreement with childish personal attacks, and now you're trying to climb on your high horse.

Does it matter if he spends time to show which of his views he says you have mischaracterized or call strawman or is it a futile exercise like you asking for 'proof' when we know you will dismiss all truth.

Did Inga stating you mischaracterized her position stop you from repeating it over and over anyway or did it fuel you repeating it? You will say it is because she is wrong and you are right and should sub_thug expect any other answer. You are always right even when there is a consensus in a poll (CNN) saying you are wrong. You wave your hand, dismiss it and just repeat the inaccuracy. Using a true partisan and political tactic. Just keeping stating it as if proven or true and eventually that is all anyone will recall.