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

[Jack V Savage]

Haha, no that is you Jack.

No, it's you. I acknowledge that people buy the CT genuinely (if mistakenly). Do you acknowledge that someone can legitimately disagree with it? Because it seems to me that the sole basis for the "partisan" charge is that I don't agree with Republicans here, which objectively invalidates the charge (as it is not based on actual partisanship but simply an insult thrown by people who can't defend their position reasonably).

All the other whining and attacking is irrelevant. That's the key issue. You're calling me a "partisan" not because you see me engage in the kind of partisanship that @IngaVovchanchyn was caught engaging in earlier (another funny example was @oleDirtyBast4rd doing a 180 on the electoral college right after the election), but simply because I disagree with a position. Your assertion is that the Republican-promoted media CT cannot legitimately be disagreed with, even though I provided reasoning that I think is irrefutable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

This is a neat trick you have. Just throw out vague personal attacks and then refuse to even attempt to justify them because allegedly they won't be accepted. In this case--and I know you will not be able to relate or even get your mind around this--what he's accusing me of is something that I do not want to do. If I have ever mischaracterized his or anyone else's position, I'd like to know so I can stop doing it. Certainly, I have a strong suspicion that he's just saying it because he's mad and doesn't have an example in mind. But I'm open to seeing it.

Did Inga stating you mischaracterized her position stop you from repeating it over and over anyway or did it fuel you repeating it?

Inga is saying that she's not a partisan, granted. But she also has defended the GOP tax cut on irrational grounds while claiming to oppose higher deficits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you just acknowledged your redefinition and didn't equivocate, there'd be no problem. Instead of "Jack you're a partisan," when by "partisan" you just mean "someone who doesn't agree with the 'liberal media' CT," that's fine. I very much am a "person who doesn't agree with the 'liberal media' CT." I very much am not a partisan, as the term is normally defined.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I think the only thing Trump is evidence of is that the office of President is almost unnecessary. I'd be fine with letting congress choose its President.

When discussing bias in the media, what you're looking for is the intent. The coverage was so heavily slanted, demonstrating clear media bias that favored the Clinton Campaign.

Tone of Trump’s Coverage, by News Outlet

Source: Media Tenor. Excludes neutral news reports.

Of course, following the campaign, it's looked equally as bad.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dy-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/5550...trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents

Does this illustrate bias or accuracy?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Does this illustrate bias or accuracy?

Impossible to answer without more info, which is why the graph is not helpful.

 

[Neph]

I don’t know if I’ve replied before I this thread but to me one of the biggest messages of the Trump presidency is that yes, the nation can easily become overwhelmingly authoritarian. The second amendment won’t help either because a lot of right wingers are totally on board

 

[WARinsertname]

Be it Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump...They are all evidence of tyranny in government in one form or another.

To throw a stone at one, be ready to receive one yourself.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Hats off to the 4.0 no .40 guy. Clever and somewhat informed.

I thought the sign was clever too but on second thought, I'm not seeing any comparisons to be made. More public school funding instead of less restrictive gun rights? The education secretary's budget allocation has what to do with gun control, exactly? Or is 4.0 supposed to represent taking the kids side. If it is, it is satire. I'd be impressed if 1 out 250 kids at Stoneman Douglas had a 4.0.