It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

page: 5
79
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




But it is your assertion that the media is responsible for the political divide and that it is "demonstrably true".

Ok. Just want to make sure that is understood because you seem confused, asking me to quote things you know you have asserted. Not sure why I have to remind you of the very things you yourself posted.


Donald Trump's assertion was “If you wanted to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media”. Just making sure you're not confusing me with someone else in order to advance your irrelevant quibbles.


If one is responsible for how they act or react, how can we state that it is "demonstrably true" that the media is the "source of the division in our country"?


Demonstrate it with evidence and argument, or in your case, dismiss the evidence and arguments and make irrelevant claims.


The source of division would be in the hands of those that choose to become divided, who alone bear responsibility for their actions/reactions, correct?


Yes, they alone bear responsibility for their actions, but they do not bear responsibility for the false information or propaganda.




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd




But don't the nation's leaders represent the nation and aren't they supposed to be exemplary models?


No. The role of the leader is defined by his country's respective charter and constitution, for instance Article II of the US Constitution describes the President's responsibilities.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
And Les I think I mildly agree with your argument. However, I think it's human nature at fault, not our media. I don't think the media wakes up in the morning and rush to work, deliberately planning to circulate falsehoods on the public to tarnish Trump's presidency. I think they, like most of us, have a bias or partisan attitude and this incidentally shows in their work. This may or may not be the case with the attacks on Trump--not all news has to be biased. News organizations aren't immune to the faults of individuals, however. I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally attack him by cherry-picking what's out there, giving us false impressions about him, and in turn deepening the political divide. It's a very normal thing to do...

There're a lot of interests in politics on all sides. From what I remember, democrats outnumber republicans. Some states are blue and others are red. There's the urban/rural gap in which urban areas are strongly democrat. Universities favor democrat or independent thinking, as do scientists--call me out if I'm wrong. All this feeds into the dynamics we witness daily.

Keep it coming Les!
edit on 1/23/2018 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
And Les I think I mildly agree with your argument. However, I think it's human nature at fault, not our media. I don't think the media wakes up in the morning and rush to work, deliberately planning to circulate falsehoods on the public to tarnish Trump's presidency. I think they, like most of us, have a bias or partisan attitude and this incidentally shows in their work. This may or may not be the case with the attacks on Trump--not all news has to be biased. News organizations aren't immune to the faults of individuals, however. I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally attack him by cherry-picking what's out there, giving us false impressions about him, and in turn deepening the political divide. It's a very normal thing to do...

There're a lot of interests in politics on all sides. From what I remember, democrats outnumber republicans. Some states are blue and others are red. There's the urban/rural gap in which urban areas are strongly democrat. All of this feeds into the dynamics we witness daily.


I agree with you.

Personally I think the political divide is necessary. We should fear an undivided public.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Donald Trump's assertion was “If you wanted to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media”. Just making sure you're not confusing me with someone else in order to advance your irrelevant quibbles.


Yes, and your assertion is that Trump is correct and it is "demonstrably true".

Which is where the contradiction comes in to play. According to your own logic, those that choose to become divided would be the source of that division. Unless, of course, the media has magical powers.

Do they?



Demonstrate it with evidence and argument, or in your case, dismiss the evidence and arguments and make irrelevant claims.


I've given you links and quotes to your own posts and threads in which your previous positions contradict your current one.



Yes, they alone bear responsibility for their actions, but they do not bear responsibility for the false information or propaganda.


Correct. They are responsible for choosing to become divided, but are not responsible for false information and propaganda. False information and propaganda would be the product of media, and even people such as Trump.

He is not innocent in that area by any means.

But the fact remains that either people are responsible for their actions and what they believe or they are not. Your position has been that they are responsible, with sources/quotes provided, except in this case where it is the media's fault.

Contradiction.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Yes, and your assertion is that Trump is correct and it is "demonstrably true".

Which is where the contradiction comes in to play. According to your own logic, those that choose to become divided would be the source of that division. Unless, of course, the media has magical powers.

Do they?


My assertion is this:

The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

Not, The Source of the Political Divide is The Media

That would be a strawman on your part.

As for your misquote, this is what I said in context:


"A far more accurate, less superstitious theory as to why the country is so divided was proposed by the man himself at a rally in Phoenix:

“If you wanted to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media”

This seems to me demonstrably true. Who is tasked with informing the public? Who is tasked with keeping them abreast of reality? "


Contextamy and misrepresentation on your part.


I've given you links and quotes to your own posts and threads in which your previous positions contradict your current one.


They did not contradict, and are completely irrelevant to my current argument. Pure fallacy.


Correct. They are responsible for choosing to become divided, but are not responsible for false information and propaganda. False information and propaganda would be the product of media, and even people such as Trump.

He is not innocent in that area by any means.

But the fact remains that either people are responsible for their actions and what they believe or they are not. Your position has been that they are responsible, with sources/quotes provided, except in this case where it is the media's fault.

Contradiction.


Irrelevant, fallacious, and wrong.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President


originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The media is a proxy of the CIA...

Things are finally beginning to make sense, thanks LM & BFFT...

William Casey connects the dots, and yes he did actually say that...


How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers, a history of the CIA’s decades-spanning attempts to co-opt and outright recruit writers and intellectuals for its own ends, is the fruit of at least 15 years of research. Yet by some cosmic happenstance, it’s only now being released, when it’s more relevant than ever.

Don’t Be Fooled By the Trump Spat—The CIA Is Not Your Friend

It's no accident many media types have CIA ties! Anderson Cooper worked as an "intern" at the CIA for 2 years before magically getting a job at CNN. No journalism background or degree...

Trump's attacks on MSM are exposing CIA's Operation Mockingbird

President Kennedy knew that rogue elements had secretly taken over the CIA. He said he wanted to ”splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces”. Those rogue elements are currently in near total control. It cost him his life and created the situation we have today.

Operation Mockingbird, CIA, NSA, Media Whores And Hoaxes




Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value?


edit on 1.23.2018 by Murgatroid because: Felt like it...



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

Not, The Source of the Political Divide is The Media

That would be a strawman on your part.


Strawman? It appears that is the basic premise of your OP. In fact, you said the media being the source was "a far more accurate, less superstitious theory" that was "demonstrably true".

Now you are backing away from what you claimed in the OP?



As for your misquote, this is what I said in context:

Contextamy and misrepresentation on your part.


How did I misrepresent what you said. I properly quoted you and provided context.



They did not contradict, and are completely irrelevant to my current argument. Pure fallacy.

Irrelevant, fallacious, and wrong.


Do you remember this quote from earlier?



That's not how it works. You've scoured my threads for signs of contradiction, but you are unable to show why its a contradiction.


It appears the pot has met the kettle. You say my post was irrelevant, fallacious, and wrong, yet fail to show why.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Strawman? It appears that is the basic premise of your OP. In fact, you said the media being the source was "a far more accurate, less superstitious theory" that was "demonstrably true".

Now you are backing away from what you claimed in the OP?


It is far more accurate and less superstitious theory, and I demonstrated how with the arguments you have continually dismissed.


How did I misrepresent what you said[?] I properly quoted you and provided context.


Because you said this: "But it is your assertion that the media is responsible for the political divide and that it is "demonstrably true"".

I never asserted that the media is responsible for the political divide.


It appears the pot has met the kettle. You say my post was irrelevant, fallacious, and wrong, yet fail to show why.


That's fair. I'm not sure why I would offer you a courtesy that you yourself are incapable of giving, but I have no problem with it.

For one, you immediately appealed to hypocrisy. Your stupid "i Know you are but what am I" argument is itself an appeal to hypocrisy, which says nothing about the current argument. Two, you scoured other threads while dismissing the entirety of this one, which is a red herring. My argument is in the title, but you pretend I am making another one, misrepresenting my argument by doing so. That's a strawman.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



It is far more accurate and less superstitious theory, and I demonstrated how with the arguments you have continually dismissed.


So it's not a strawmen.

Got it.



Because you said this: "But it is your assertion that the media is responsible for the political divide and that it is "demonstrably true"".

I never asserted that the media is responsible for the political divide.


That was the basis of your OP, was it not?



That's fair. I'm not sure why I would offer you a courtesy that you yourself are incapable of giving, but I have no problem with it.


Let's be honest here. I gave you links and sources. The problem is not that I did not back-up my assertions. The problem is that you don't like them and have easily opened yourself up to accusations of holding inconsistent beliefs or standards.



For one, you immediately appealed to hypocrisy.


Perhaps you do not know what an appeal to hypocrisy is.

I was not trying to refute your assertions in regards to Trump and division. I actually agree with you for the most part on that. I did not even attempt to refute what you stated about the media. What I did do is show how you hold inconsistent beliefs and how this thread contradicts what you have said in the past. For it to be an appeal to hypocrisy, I would have to use that inconsistency of hypocrisy to refute your basic argument. Which I have not done.



Your stupid "i Know you are but what am I" argument is itself an appeal to hypocrisy, which says nothing about the current argument.


I made no such argument. I made the claim that your approach was akin to such an argument. Hypocrisy had nothing to do with it.



Two, you scoured other threads while dismissing the entirety of this one, which is a red herring.


I read this thread and your responses. It is not a red herring to point out that you hold inconsistent beliefs and apply those beliefs inconsistently.



. My argument is in the title, but you pretend I am making another one, misrepresenting my argument by doing so. That's a strawman.


So are we to dismiss the actual OP and only argue what you state in the title? Because if you read the OP it appears you are agreeing with Trump's statement and proceed to lay-out why the media is to blame for political division.

Not sure how discussing what you literally posted in the OP is a strawman.


edit on 23-1-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
I hate to be clich'e but Follow the money. Look no further than Bedford Hills NY and you will find George Soros. There you will find the number one source of division.


George Soros again??......right-wing billionaires have spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than Soros on right-wing propaganda....tell me something, if Soros had that much influence, why do we have the entire government run by right-wingers?.....logic is your friend



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I was not trying to refute your assertions in regards to Trump and division. I actually agree with you for the most part on that. I did not even attempt to refute what you stated about the media.


I appreciate that. And thanks for bumping my thread.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




I was not trying to refute your assertions in regards to Trump and division. I actually agree with you for the most part on that. I did not even attempt to refute what you stated about the media.


I appreciate that. And thanks for bumping my thread.


No problem. We need more people to see threads like this as examples of hypocrisy, illogical arguments and lazy/poor debating skills.

But I'm sure you do not care about any of that. Apparently you are more concerned about the attention/bumps, not the quality.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




I was not trying to refute your assertions in regards to Trump and division. I actually agree with you for the most part on that. I did not even attempt to refute what you stated about the media.


I appreciate that. And thanks for bumping my thread.


No problem. We need more people to see threads like this as examples of hypocrisy, illogical arguments and lazy/poor debating skills.

But I'm sure you do not care about any of that. Apparently you are more concerned about the attention/bumps, not the quality.


Yes I love how you agree with me but then try to find some other irrelevant excuse to continue to disagree. The irony is perfect.

You and quality do not belong in the same sentence.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Yes I love how you agree with me but then try to find some other irrelevant excuse to continue to disagree.


I agree that Trump is not the cause of the divide. I do not agree with the garbage argument regarding the media. Either people choose to become divided or they do not. In other threads, you seem to take the position that people make the choice to do what they do, but in this case the media has magical powers that control people. That is where your inconsistency comes in to play and it is completely relevant considering it was the bulk of your OP.



You and quality do not belong in the same sentence.


I'm not sure I'm too concerned about your opinion, given the fact that you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite and are willing to be dishonest for the sake of pushing a political narrative.

But you are more concerned about the attention, right? As long as you threads gets the bumps, you couldn't care less.
edit on 24-1-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You do not know what a hypocrite means. You do not take into account your fallacies. You misrepresent my arguments. That’s your going rate. That’s all you can do.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

You do not know what a hypocrite means. You do not take into account your fallacies. You misrepresent my arguments. That’s your going rate. That’s all you can do.


As usual, you like to talk but fail to show your work. Something you like to accuse others of. You've already proven at least once that you like to talk about fallacies, but fail to understand them. In this case, your claim of my appealing to hypocrisy.

I've also presented your statements in full context, with quotes and links and all you seem to be able to do is cry "nuh uh".

Like I said, lazy and poor debating skills. But you got the attention and considering the lack of value in your arguments, I'd say that is all you really wanted.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

This isn't a debate. You've already agreed with my conclusion, but have taken it upon yourself to self-aggrandize.

Yes, you appealed to hypocrisy.

"Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument."

Tu Quoque

Here's you:


The problem is that you don't like them and have easily opened yourself up to accusations of holding inconsistent beliefs or standards.



I've shown exactly why it's a contradiction. You hold inconsistent beliefs and it's application depends upon the political narrative you are trying to push.


Your entire argument is a fallacy. Of course, every time I do show you why, we get to watch as your fingers go in your ear.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



This isn't a debate. You've already agreed with my conclusion, but have taken it upon yourself to self-aggrandize.


I agree with part of your conclusion. Perhaps you should go back and read the discussion for proper context. But we have already been through this once.

You contradict yourself in the OP and it's obvious. Couple that with your past positions and that makes you a hypocrite, as your stated beliefs are not reflected in your words/actions.



Your entire argument is a fallacy. Of course, every time I do show you why, we get to watch as your fingers go in your ear.


And I've already addressed that aspect as well, which you simply seem to have avoided. When addressed earlier, you opted to talk about the attention you were getting instead.

Much like your OP, you're just wasting my time.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You appealed to hypocrisy to divert attention away from the argument back on me. Ad hominem and red herrings is all you have to promote your so-called "debate skills". And as you usual, you run as soon as you realize your own irrationality.




top topics



 
79
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join