Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
He was using an over the top hypothetical to demonstrate the clearly over the top nonsense that was Dershowitz's defense of Trump. I feel ridiculous that I assumed everyone would see it for what it is, but I again underestimated the effect of propaganda.
He was using Dershowitz’s example. This has been posted many times on the board already explaining that.
You should sit back and take a long, long look at the behavior of the left and think about who is pushing propaganda and who isn't. And irony. You should definitely do some research on that too.
I do try. I listened to every minute of the House testimony during the impeachment inquiry. I encountered a number of right-wing articles on here and on Facebook that made me question what I heard, because they were using quotes out of context, or partial quotes that changed the overall meaning. I have yet to come across something like this from any of the sources I frequently read, but feel free to point out any specific instances.
Exactly to act like one side OWNS this is just beyond belief.
To no avail. Along with the actual meaning of words, like thinking that could and will are synonyms, this fact, as to the actual source of Schiff's statement seems seems to make no difference.
And you've completely missed the point. Hanging on petty semantics is the last gasp of someone who can't stand on their own arguments.
Yeah, actually.
Where exactly did someone here claim to have a "stranglehold on the truth?"
The words could and will are not synonyms, and to argue that they are or have the same meaning is either ignorant or being intentionally obtuse. This is not talking about Hanging on petty semantics. Please.
Yeah. Just like you, I'm completely above the fray and see things with perfect, unemotional logic. And if you asked most of the people here or anywhere else, they feel the same way. We're all definitely seeing things for what they really are. How come everyone else can't understand the truth without bias like we do?
I don't know, but I'm going to find out.
Or Alternately titled by Democrats: "It's only disinformation when YOUR side does it".
Hey, sorry for the combativeness on my part. Have a good one as well and thanks for discussing.John Blutarsky said:
What point is that? You made a post in another thread about how no Democrat can be trusted. But you definitely see how it's a "both sides" problem and not just tilted toward one side.BladeRunner said:I don't know, but I'm going to find out.
BTW, I know you're being facetious and your post actually helps prove my point.
Hey MT, sorry on my part. Coffee infused energy there. Thanks for always keeping things even. - SIDMaurile Tremblay said:
Oh, no. I absolutely love wallowing in the slop with the rest of you guys!
Ahh...so spreading more disinformation now? Because claiming a 3 year get Trump thing by Schiff doesn't have a lot of basis in fact.
That *was the case. Given what Dersh said, why was Schiff’s hypothetical wrong, on what basis would Trump be impeachable?BladeRunner said:
I think this proves that Michael Bloomberg paid for advertising space on Youtube. What do you think it proves?Courtjester said:
People at the rallies are obviously not all of the 60 million that voted for him, but for the bold people just dont really care.SaintsInDome2006 said:
I don’t think Trump supporters by and large acknowledge the lying. But even so isn’t that reaction to ‘you suck’ just another way of describing the resentment I noted above?
The disinformation was in the poster claiming both sides because the left does it too...and using Schiff's words as an example of that. Schiff's statement wasn't disinformation...someone claiming it was without the full context about Dershowitz is what was disinformation. In short...the poster proved that disinformation was out there by posting an article slanted right that made it look like Schiff said those things with no real context.
The guy is pretty loony at times, but he's really not wrong with those statements.SaintsInDome2006 said:
Actually, I think the goal of disinformation is the exact opposite: destroy the concept of objective truth. People assume that nothing is true, and don't bother to draw a distinction between legitimate sources and propaganda. I believe I read somewhere that was the explicit goal of Russia's disinformation campaigns around the world.BladeRunner said:
Their unwillingness to get behind significant election reforms like the FRA -- largely because, imho, it will make third parties much more viable than our current first past the post system -- is the biggest beef I have with the Democratic Party right now. Like the failure to entertain debate about increasing the size of the House (and thus diminishing the importance of each individual House seat), I believe this smacks of self-interest over the good of the electorate. An electorate which would support both changes.
What makes you say the majority of people are between the 20s? That's not my impression at all.
The majority of people don’t pay attention to politics and probably couldn’t name the current Vice President.
True, but I'm not sure that's really a recipe for a viable third party. "This is the party for all the people that don't pay attention. We'll be holding our convention in my basement because nobody is going to show up."
Majority of the people had no idea an impeachment was even going on. Nobody even talked about it. I don`t watch cable news so if I did not come here once in awhile I probably would not have known.
Yeah, that's an overgeneralization. But the two youngest generations -- Millennials and Z -- did outvote the combined Silent/Boomer bloc by a little bit in '18 and that was important to the overall results. Also, one of the long-term polling outfits (Pew?) is reporting that aging Millennials are not turning to the church and the conservative political party in nearly the same percentages as they did a few decades ago. The GOP (and not a few FBGs) have long believed that they don't have to win younger voters because those voters will inevitably turn to them as they reach upper middle aged. That's not the case now. And if that trend holds, the Republican Party is in a world of hurt down the road.
I'd always heard that once you hit 30, you'll start voting Republican, or something along those lines. If anything, I've become less likely to vote GOP since turning 30. What exactly is there right now in the party that excites me as a millennial voter? The economy isn't in the ####ter, that's a positive, though I'm a little concerned about the long-term economic ramifications of the TCJA. Other than that?
It's usually expressed as a joke along the lines of "If you're 20 and conservative, you don't have a heart. If you're 40 and liberal, you don't have a brain."
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
This may have been true when Trump was first elected (a poll from October 2016 showed that 40% of respondents couldn't name the VP candidates), but a poll from last year showed that only 12% of respondents did not know who Mike Pence was. (It's worth noting that the poll did not specifically ask people to "name the current Vice President", so it's likely that some respondents recognized the name but did not know that he was VP.)
Similar here...im 45 and as Ive gotten older...ive leaned more left (which has also coincided with the GOP going too far right and too far away from any fiscal conservativism...if we are going to spend anyway...Id rather it be on things that matter more to more people...like healthcare)I'd always heard that once you hit 30, you'll start voting Republican, or something along those lines. If anything, I've become less likely to vote GOP since turning 30. What exactly is there right now in the party that excites me as a millennial voter? The economy isn't in the ####ter, that's a positive, though I'm a little concerned about the long-term economic ramifications of the TCJA. Other than that?
If were a liberal billionaire, I would set up a SuperPAC and spend gobs of money on hyper-targeted digital campaigns aimed at suppressing enthusiasm among key elements of Trump's base. Give all kinds of messages to evangelicals about what a horrible person he is, how he's admitted never asking God for forgiveness, etc.. Remind veterans of how he treated John McCain, La David Johnson and Humayan Khan, pardoned war criminals, etc. The point isn't to win those people over the Democratic side -- though if it happens, great -- it's to make them a little less excited about volunteering for him, talking him up to their friends, and ultimately, voting for him. I would keep the whole thing under the radar (maybe that is the case and the campaign is already happening, in which case, bravo!) and focus on simple, direct messages delivered by members of that group.
The problem is that these particular topics are not likely to alienate the average Trump-supporting veteran.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
