Yeah, we see that a lot. People defend every little thing Trump does and support various CTs (his legal troubles are "lawfare," his debate loss was because the moderators were against him, etc.), and then add "oh, but he's bad" as if it absolves them of hackery.
Again, the fundamental issue with the whole discussion is that your position is entirely faith-based. You can't reason about it because it's not founded on observations or logic.
I see a lot that you just insinuate things that are flat out untrue. I've mentioned multiple times why he lost the debate, and it wasnt because of the moderation, even though I do think there was an obvious bias with them. The two things can exist simultaneously. He lost for very valid reasons, and at the same time the moderators did show an obvious bias.
I don't see the claim that moderators were biased against him or that the legal system is biased against him or generally that everything he does wrong is because of a conspiracy against him to be in the range of respectable opinion, as opposed to cultish mantras.
It's not at all. I haven't been anything but. It's not dishonest to disagree with Republicans. I relate that term more to telling the truth.
And thats pretty much the problem. Everything is due to your personal internal logic and you don't validate it with anything external. It's all your belief. When things don't line up with your thinking it's just "cultish mantras" and everyone else is "super partisan", then you and only you get to dictate what positions are reasonable and unreasonable. Then you can dismiss everything that falls under the unreasonable category, which is probably just about everything you disagree with.
What do you mean? I gave an example to illustrate it, and I could explain more if you're genuinely curious. I think another big problem with the claim is a lack of any plausible motive. If it's that the moderators were intentionally trying to undermine Trump, why? If it's that it's unconscious, what's causing it? What is the precise nature of the bias? But I think "all non-Republican media is against us" is central to the identity of Republicans, and thus not something that you guys are capable of discussing calmly.
Sure I do, and that's implicit in mentioning the line. There is a range of reasonable disagreement. I just don't think the "lawfare" or "biased moderation" CTs are on the good side of it. I read conservatives widely, and learn from many, and I have friends I respect who are conservative. I just don't put conservative views and wild conspiracy theories in the same category.
Well, the word would be that you didn't make any arguments at all for your case, and there are many facts that can't be explained by your theory (see liberal reactions to Weiner, Menendez, Biden, and Adams).
They'll keep ignoring this, and then when he wins they'll ignore you ever said this.
I don't have TDS and I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidential election.
Which is fine, people should root for their teams, as long as they are ready to say they were wrong when the time comes.
I don't know you well enough to give a shit about you either way. What I don't like is your behaviour, specifically, your habit of tagging people into threads just to start shit with them or for backup as you stir up shit with someone else, as is the case with this post. I recall asking you to desist, alas.
