LogFAQs > #908501628

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	If you haven't already heard, Trump's own administration is working against him.
Zeus 09/10/18 9:27:52 PM #51:	darkknight109 posted... (who should arguably be undermining him a lot more than they are). Why? SCOTUS aren't suppose to act as advocates of their personal beliefs, they're supposed to hear and decide on constitutional matters without bias. darkknight109 posted... Play the ref all you like, it doesn't make this sentiment any closer to being true. The fact that it's true makes it true. If you're sitting there denying that there's a liberal bias in organizations overwhelmingly staffed by democrats who are often none too quiet about their personal beliefs (to the extent that professors take some personal days after the wrong president wins election) darkknight109 posted... Of course - how could I have not seen it? Two separate sources - respectively one of the world's most respected and successful news outlets ...with a history of making up stories, a personal vendetta, and who has been using negative coverage of Trump to fill their coffers -- in exactly the same way that other publications which also knowingly lied about stories profited. And again, the NYT has gone through unprecedented act to unprecedented act. darkknight109 posted... and the guy who fucking broke Watergate and is one of the most well-respected journalists ever - clearly both put decades of credibility on the line in order to make a bunch of shit up. That is a completely reasonable assertion and obviously not bat-shit-bonkers. ...you mean the guy who broke a story by providing evidence of wrongdoing who is now offering up unsubstantiated quotes and claims? Overlooking your pretty weak appeal to authority, you're forgetting that --- if you believe that Trump is the literal anti-Christ (because your echo chambers have constantly reinforced that idea) or view his rise as an outsider as a threat to the system --- it's unsurprising that people would be willing to stake anything on his removal. darkknight109 posted... Fuck me, this may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post here. You've said some ridiculous things in the past, but I thought conspiracy theories were below you. A conspiracy would require shadowy coordination. I haven't accused the media of covertly coordinating attacks, but instead perpetrating and perpetuating a cycle of lies as well as abandoning even the facade of unbiased journalism. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:908501628] in If you hav... [t:76972426]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>(who should arguably be undermining him a lot more than they are).</quote> Why? SCOTUS aren't suppose to act as advocates of their personal beliefs, they're supposed to hear and decide on constitutional matters without bias. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Play the ref all you like, it doesn't make this sentiment any closer to being true.</quote> The fact that it's true makes it true. If you're sitting there denying that there's a liberal bias in organizations overwhelmingly staffed by democrats who are often none too quiet about their personal beliefs (to the extent that professors take some personal days after the wrong president wins election) <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Of course - how could I have not seen it? Two separate sources - respectively one of the world's most respected and successful news outlets</quote> ...with a history of making up stories, a personal vendetta, and who has been using negative coverage of Trump to fill their coffers -- in exactly the same way that other publications which also knowingly lied about stories profited. And again, the NYT has gone through unprecedented act to unprecedented act. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>and the guy who fucking broke Watergate and is one of the most well-respected journalists ever - clearly both put decades of credibility on the line in order to make a bunch of shit up. That is a completely reasonable assertion and obviously not bat-shit-bonkers.</quote> ...you mean the guy who broke a story by providing evidence of wrongdoing who is now offering up unsubstantiated quotes and claims? Overlooking your pretty weak appeal to authority, you're forgetting that --- if you believe that Trump is the literal anti-Christ (because your echo chambers have constantly reinforced that idea) or view his rise as an outsider as a threat to the system --- it's unsurprising that people would be willing to stake anything on his removal. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck me, this may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post here. You've said some ridiculous things in the past, but I thought conspiracy theories were below you.</quote> A conspiracy would require shadowy coordination. I haven't accused the media of covertly coordinating attacks, but instead perpetrating and perpetuating a cycle of lies as well as abandoning even the facade of unbiased journalism. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1