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

[sub_thug]

Derp.

This is exactly the sort of comment that @MikeMcMann and @IngaVovchanchyn were talking about. Unhelpful noise surrounding the real conversation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is exactly the sort of comment that @MikeMcMann and @IngaVovchanchyn were talking about. Unhelpful noise surrounding the real conversation.

That comment was kind of a stinker, though, you gotta admit.

 

[sub_thug]

That comment was kind of a stinker, though, you gotta admit.

Admit what?

 

[sub_thug]

I think the reason is obvious, but I'm asking how you fit that into your CT? If they're actually trying to take him down, why would they do so much unethical stuff that helps him?

This isn't a CT. This is an example of you being partisan, plan and simple.

Wait, what? What media replaced anti-Kerry liberal pundits with pro-liberal ones? And, yes, I understand that they have a reason, but what's the impact?

I don't understand why you struggle to realize why the media would host members of the campaign that's running for POTUS.

Holy crap, you don't really believe that, do you?

Those are the facts. You are being blind to them, but why? Because you want to minimize Hillary Clinton's crimes?

The media covered Russia hacking communications by Democrats because that is very obviously a major news story. And it's possible that the GOP was hacked, too, but the info wouldn't be released because the intention was to help them win.

Why are you subscribing to a CT where you think the media is trying to help the GOP win?

You "know" it because Fox and Breitbart are telling you it. But if you look into the issue objectively, you'll see that the CT is nutty.

I watch neither. This comes from my own analysis watching CNN. If you were to look at this objectively, you would see that you are simply wrong. You're going to need to put your ego aside to see it though.

 

[sub_thug]

Look if Jack's view is that all publicity is good publicity then I would not take issue with it.

he is speaking to the slant or bias of the reporting and saying he thinks CNN favored Trump. I think that is a position he is completely on his own on.

Yeah, this is what I don't get. It's rationalizing the issue after the fact. "Trump won, so therefore, the media helped him win because they covered him so much." Never mind the endless number of pieces designed to crush the guy. At this point, the media isn't even trying. I respect them as an institution years ago, and I really thought that they were trying to be impartial for years. But for the last 10-12 years, they've really steered into the skids on this whole "liberal media" thing. Now, they're just a mouthpiece for Democratic candidates, and it's really frustrating because it forces you to filter every single thing that comes out of their mouths. You certainly can't take them at their word.

 

[HereticBD]

It is one of the only times I wish i was a Plat so I could create a poll with that simple question:

"Do you think CNN coverage in the lead up to the election Favored Trump. Yes or No?"

To show you how out of touch and exactly how partisan bias can indeed cloud ones view of things.

Someone made a thread already. Went exactly as you'd imagine. Jack denied the results.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

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.

Yes, Trump is literally Hitler and the USA are literally the Third Reich.

LITERALLY !!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!eleven!!!!!!!!11!!!!!

 

[panamaican]

Nothing?

Not imo. Self-serving, superficial, divisive, etc. are applicable.

I guess it depends on how you define tyrant. If it's an authoritarian bully who is cruel/harsh in his policy selections then I guess "tyrant" starts making more sense. If you need to include extralegal actions then no.

 

[CrazyN8]

Someone made a thread already. Went exactly as you'd imagine. Jack denied the results.

I made that thread when I had plat, it was a great thread.

Edit: for those interested.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/the-is-cnn-biased-post-poll-edition.3405295/#post-124185663

 

[Jack V Savage]

Admit what?

That the post he was responding to was a stinker. Obviously the notion that the media was biased toward Clinton is absurd.

This isn't a CT. This is an example of you being partisan, plan and simple.

So this is a good example of the nutter mindset here. I'm a "partisan" not because I show any partisanship but because I don't blindly accept a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

I don't understand why you struggle to realize why the media would host members of the campaign that's running for POTUS.

Hosting them as guests on shows is normal. Hiring someone as a commentator who cannot say anything bad about one of the candidates is unprecedented and highly unethical.

Those are the facts. You are being blind to them, but why? Because you want to minimize Hillary Clinton's crimes?

The FBI made it clear that there were no crimes. Hence the point. The media blew up a minor IT security protocol violation into the crime of the century, covering it more than all policy issues combined and much more serious scandals of the other candidate.

Why are you subscribing to a CT where you think the media is trying to help the GOP win?

??? I think you need to read through the thread again.

I watch neither. This comes from my own analysis watching CNN. If you were to look at this objectively, you would see that you are simply wrong. You're going to need to put your ego aside to see it though.

I get that you buy your CT because of your own bias, but where is the personal nastiness coming from?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, this is what I don't get. It's rationalizing the issue after the fact. "Trump won, so therefore, the media helped him win because they covered him so much." Never mind the endless number of pieces designed to crush the guy. At this point, the media isn't even trying. I respect them as an institution years ago, and I really thought that they were trying to be impartial for years. But for the last 10-12 years, they've really steered into the skids on this whole "liberal media" thing. Now, they're just a mouthpiece for Democratic candidates, and it's really frustrating because it forces you to filter every single thing that comes out of their mouths. You certainly can't take them at their word.

Putting aside the falseness of all this (I think my earlier posts have definitively made that point, which is why you guys can only respond by misrepresenting my points and personal attacks), I'm curious about the *why* of this CT. Trump is the guy redistributing wealth to owners of media corporations, the guy who drives political ratings like no one before him, and the guy promoting a more pro-owner agenda, and the demographics of his base line up better with MSM consumption. Why would you think they would try to take him down? Again, in other posts, I helped explain that the theory is false, and you can respond to them on that issue, but here I'm wondering why people who believe it think it's happening.

 

[sub_thug]

That the post he was responding to was a stinker. Obviously the notion that the media was biased toward Clinton is absurd.

They absolutely were. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. It's a job field that attracts liberals at a disproportionate amount, so saying that the media has a liberal bias is no more controversial than saying that law enforcement has a conservative bias. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-media-why-so-liberal/?utm_term=.d1783abdc8ef

So this is a good example of the nutter mindset here. I'm a "partisan" not because I show any partisanship but because I don't blindly accept a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

You are being partisan though. You are refusing to admit bias, fault, or error on behalf of yourself or the party you support in the face of overwhelming evidence. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is.

Hosting them as guests on shows is normal. Hiring someone as a commentator who cannot say anything bad about one of the candidates is unprecedented and highly unethical.

Do you know how the process of hiring a talking head works? They find people who support a viewpoint, in this case on behalf of the guy running for office, and they bring them onto a show, knowing what's going to happen. I actually know a guy who has appeared on CNN and Fox several times, and he's brought in because they know he will say certain things. What makes these places biased, each in their own way, is because they know ahead of time which viewpoint is going to end up looking more rational than the other. Because they can predict who's going to win the fight is what makes these station propaganda.

The FBI made it clear that there were no crimes. Hence the point. The media blew up a minor IT security protocol violation into the crime of the century, covering it more than all policy issues combined and much more serious scandals of the other candidate.

She had information that was supposed to be secured on SIPRNet (Secret) and JWICS (Top Secret) on a NIPRNet (Unclassified) server. Her personal device (cell phone) was networked to that server without the addition of additional security protocols. Would you like me to get more technical for you? I can tell you that her applications and browsers did not have STIGs implemented on them, that her devices were not configured with the DHS-approved tools to ensure continuous monitoring, and that her data was being hosted on a variety of cloud servers, including AWS. AWS commercial cloud, which connected to her phone through her apps, has data centers all around the world, including China and Russia. AWS does data replication around the world, meaning that accessing much of her Secret and Top Secret information would have been as simple as plugging into the servers located in those countries. That is why this is such a big deal. The enemy shouldn't have such easy access to our classified information.

??? I think you need to read through the thread again.

You accused the media of withholding information because they wanted to help the GOP win, did you not?

I get that you buy your CT because of your own bias, but where is the personal nastiness coming from?

This is why you are being called partisan by so many people. You have inherent bias, and you're pretending that you don't. You're claiming to be a beacon of pure truth and facts, but what you're actually doing is sticking up for the politicians that you like and going after the ones that you don't. That makes you a partisan. If you can't see that, it's because something is clouding your judgment. What I suspect is that you have invested a great deal of yourself into the idea that you are the smartest guy in the room, that you are above the "tribes," and that you are beyond reproach in this forum. The fact is that you are subject to the same fallacies and quandaries as the rest of us, but you're unwilling to admit it.

Jack, we've had good exchanges, you've pointed out some really interesting things to me that have helped me shape my opinions on certain topics (for example, creating additional colleges throughout the economically-depressed areas of Appalachia as a means of creating viable towns in the area), and I don't think you're a bad guy or anything. But sometimes, you dig in and try to tap-dance your way out of it when you've been had. If you think that the media should go after President Trump because you think he deserves it, then you are welcome to have that viewpoint. But just understand that you are arguing that the media should be an attack dog instead of an independent system that is designed to tell the truth. Otherwise, they'd be telling the whole story about this child immigration thing. They'd be saying that the 9th Circuit courts ruled in 2015 that you couldn't send children to jail with their parents, that only people crossing illegally between ports of entry are being arrested (not asylum seekers), that federal judges found that conditions at select border control stations were deplorable back in 2015, and that the whole "this policy is for deterrence" was the same logic that the Obama Administration used when they were defending their policies in the 9th Circuit Court. The only thing that the Trump Administration has changed is that they are treating everyone who crosses illegally as a criminal, using the same stupid deterrence argument to defend their policies, but now, we've got a political football on our hands that is designed to make the GOP appear like awful people. What they are today in the media are a bunch of individuals who feel the need to drum up public support or outrage over the issues that they select, shaping public opinion as the intended effect. And because these people self-identify as liberals and Democrats, they are using their own feelings and views as the lens in which to judge what issues should and should not be made into news cycle issues.

 

[sub_thug]

Putting aside the falseness of all this (I think my earlier posts have definitively made that point, which is why you guys can only respond by misrepresenting my points and personal attacks), I'm curious about the *why* of this CT. Trump is the guy redistributing wealth to owners of media corporations, the guy who drives political ratings like no one before him, and the guy promoting a more pro-owner agenda, and the demographics of his base line up better with MSM consumption. Why would you think they would try to take him down? Again, in other posts, I helped explain that the theory is false, and you can respond to them on that issue, but here I'm wondering why people who believe it think it's happening.

I answer this in my response. In short, because journalism is a field that attracts liberals and Democrats at a disproportionately high number. Because the individuals deciding what stories will be brought forward have a bias, they use that bias as a lens to judge which stories to push forward, how hard they will be pushing forward, how those stories will be presented, etc.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Someone made a thread already. Went exactly as you'd imagine. Jack denied the results.

I made that thread when I had plat, it was a great thread.

Edit: for those interested.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/the-is-cnn-biased-post-poll-edition.3405295/#post-124185663

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.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Yeah, this is what I don't get. It's rationalizing the issue after the fact. "Trump won, so therefore, the media helped him win because they covered him so much." Never mind the endless number of pieces designed to crush the guy. At this point, the media isn't even trying. I respect them as an institution years ago, and I really thought that they were trying to be impartial for years. But for the last 10-12 years, they've really steered into the skids on this whole "liberal media" thing. Now, they're just a mouthpiece for Democratic candidates, and it's really frustrating because it forces you to filter every single thing that comes out of their mouths. You certainly can't take them at their word.

they they they them them them

there is no they or them with regard to "the media." if we're being honest, is CNN any more powerful these days than some of the more popular partisan facebook click bait sites? i dont think so. in fact, theyre even more insidious. we know that most people dont even read these posted articles. we just read the F'ing headlines for the most part. trump had his own very powerful army of "them" in this election.

and your earlier comments where youre lecturing jack about watching things objectively....everyone THINKS theyre objective lol. and the irony is, the more certain you are that you're being objective, the more likely it is that youve made yourself vulnerable to all manner of biases.

 

[sub_thug]

they they they them them them

there is no they or them with regard to "the media." if we're being honest, is CNN any more powerful these days than some of the more popular partisan facebook click bait sites? i dont think so. in fact, theyre even more insidious. we know that most people dont even read these posted articles. we just read the F'ing headlines for the most part. trump had his own very powerful army of "them" in this election.

and your earlier comments where youre lecturing jack about watching things objectively....everyone THINKS theyre objective lol. and the irony is, the more certain you are that you're being objective, the more likely it is that youve made yourself vulnerable to all manner of biases.

This is obfuscating the issue largely, as Jack and I were spending a fair amount of time discussing the MSM. We weren't really going off into the fringe stuff, such as Breitbart, the Slate, the Blaze, the Young Turks, etc. If you want to say that "Well, no one really reads that stuff anyways, they just read the headlines..." then you're just kind of dismissing the whole topic altogether. The same dismissive attitude could be said for the idea that the MSM isn't as powerful today because of other news sites. If you operate under the premise that the MSM has an important role in today's political landscape, then what that role is and how they perform at it is important and what this thread has been about over the past few pages. And tying it back to President Trump just kind of reinforces the point that if you want to cut back on the power that these "alternative news sites" have, then the MSM needs to do its job.

I agree with you on this, and I even said as much in a post. We are all subject to biases, and if you paint yourself as having none and being a voice of impartial truth, then I'm going to tell you that you're wrong. And this is exactly what I was trying to check him on. Should I not tell people when they're letting bias take over their argument?

 

[Jack V Savage]

They absolutely were. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. It's a job field that attracts liberals at a disproportionate amount, so saying that the media has a liberal bias is no more controversial than saying that law enforcement has a conservative bias.

Well, to say that the MSM has a liberal bias is demonstrably false. And note that reporters don't set the tone of coverage or make the kinds of decisions that can bias coverage (see my earlier posts).

You are being partisan though. You are refusing to admit bias, fault, or error on behalf of yourself or the party you support in the face of overwhelming evidence. If that's not partisan, I don't know what is.

So, @MikeMcMann, this definition of "partisan" is just a contentless personal attack. He's mad that I showed a cherished position of his was wrong, and he cannot respond to the point I make so he's just personally lashing out. But as I use the term (correctly), I refer to people who put team loyalty over principles, as @IngaVovchanchyn does when she abandons her previously expressed concern about debt to defend Trump (and the GOP tax cut).

Do you know how the process of hiring a talking head works?

Hiring? I'm not sure if you're understanding the distinction between staff and guests.

What makes these places biased, each in their own way, is because they know ahead of time which viewpoint is going to end up looking more rational than the other. Because they can predict who's going to win the fight is what makes these station propaganda.

That's an interesting example of a closed intellectual system. If someone you agree with wins the argument, that's because they have a good point, if someone you agree with loses, it's because the media is biased.

Would you like me to get more technical for you?

This is an example of a little bit of knowledge leading you astray. Note that legal experts were saying as soon as it started that there was no chance that she would have been found to have done anything illegal, and then the FBI cleared her definitively (wasn't even a close call, according to the FBI). And yet we still have hacks holding on to it. In fact, this is a great illustration of the issue described in the OP. The GOP literally tried to steal a presidential election by pushing for law enforcement to arrest the leading candidate on trumped-up charges. And many Republicans were and still are totally OK with that.

You accused the media of withholding information because they wanted to help the GOP win, did you not?

Let me just refer you to an earlier point before you embarrass yourself any more:

"It's neither, really. I'm saying that they gave him special coverage to take advantage of his celebrity, changed their pundit lineup to continue to have people on both sides of every issue, and made terrible news judgment regarding a minor issue to placate Republicans and because they didn't take Trump seriously. The combined impact of those decisions was unquestionably positive for Trump, though the motivations may not have been."

This is why you are being called partisan by so many people. You have inherent bias, and you're pretending that you don't.

You haven't shown that at all. You're just mad because I'm not agreeing with your cherished CT.

You're claiming to be a beacon of pure truth and facts, but what you're actually doing is sticking up for the politicians that you like and going after the ones that you don't.

Huh? We're discussing media bias, not politicians. Jesus, try to conduct yourself with some honor here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nice.

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

Give me some evidence that can even be debated. Not of me not believing a CT, but of me abandoning principles for partisan reasons the way Inga does.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree with you on this, and I even said as much in a post. We are all subject to biases, and if you paint yourself as having none and being a voice of impartial truth, then I'm going to tell you that you're wrong. And this is exactly what I was trying to check him on. Should I not tell people when they're letting bias take over their argument?

Really, I don't think most people are as biased as you are. I mean, people have biases, sure, but they don't have to line up with political parties.

 

[sub_thug]

Really, I don't think most people are as biased as you are. I mean, people have biases, sure, but they don't have to line up with political parties.

The irony of this post is that I've voted for Democrats in every election I've voted in except for 2016.