• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you rather have Russians or liberals interfering in our elections?

James972 said:
I'd rather have Russians since they seem neutral while encouraging demonstrations against both sides (according to Mueller's indictment) and operate on a tiny tiny scale whereas liberals operate on a massive scale supporting big govt schemes that clearly oppose the basic limited govt, carefully enumerated powers spelled out in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the Russians. I don't care about the liberals.

But I DO care about the Mainstream Media interfering in our elections.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't care about the Russians. I don't care about the liberals.

But I DO care about the Mainstream Media interfering in our elections.
Click to expand...

Mycroft: Do you include Fox in the main stream media assertion you made above? Do you think the Wall Street Journal is main stream media?
Would you consider for the purpose of being fair and balanced reading the Wall Street Journal's main stories and the New York Times main stories for just one week and see how different they are or are not? You see the Wall Street Journal is generally considered conservative and is owned by Ruppard Murdock, while the New York Times is generally considered liberal. Notice I didn't ask you to read the New York Post which is also owned by Murdock but it really is a rag with headlines as catchy as (Anthony's Weener strikes again) . Anthony Weener is sick and the dems did right to force his resignation, but who wants to read trash like the Post? Really, if your just going to take Sean Hannity's word for it that the media is bias, maybe you might not be getting a fair and balanced view. Shouldn't you want to investigate this claim on your own?:2wave:
 
if-you-were-wondering-why-republicans-dont-want-tolnvestigate-the-14564478.png


:elephantf:usflag2:

donald-trump-tweets-2012-1478856552.jpg


 
Rich123 said:
Mycroft: Do you include Fox in the main stream media assertion you made above? Do you think the Wall Street Journal is main stream media?
Would you consider for the purpose of being fair and balanced reading the Wall Street Journal's main stories and the New York Times main stories for just one week and see how different they are or are not? You see the Wall Street Journal is generally considered conservative and is owned by Ruppard Murdock, while the New York Times is generally considered liberal. Notice I didn't ask you to read the New York Post which is also owned by Murdock but it really is a rag with headlines as catchy as (Anthony's Weener strikes again) . Anthony Weener is sick and the dems did right to force his resignation, but who wants to read trash like the Post? Really, if your just going to take Sean Hannity's word for it that the media is bias, maybe you might not be getting a fair and balanced view. Shouldn't you want to investigate this claim on your own?:2wave:
Click to expand...

I consider all of them to be Mainstream Media. I consider all of them to be interfering with our election.

I don't want a media that tells people what to think. I don't want a media who trots out talking potato heads to give their interpretation of events or facts.

I want a media that presents facts. I want a media that asks questions without arguing about the answers.

I am capable of interpreting facts. I am capable of evaluating answers.

The Mainstream Media is interfering in the election process by trying to get people to think as THEY do. I'll think as I do.
 
Old Trapper said:
Stupid question. But then, I don't expect much intelligence from a partisan right winger.
Click to expand...
If you think it’s stupid can you say why. As a liberal do you understand that having a reason is necessary?
 
James972 said:
If you think it’s stupid can you say why. As a liberal do you understand that having a reason is necessary?
Click to expand...

Seems like everyone else understands why which should tell you something about your intellectual level. However, your "question" was "Would you rather have Russians or liberals interfering in our elections?" (which would place a big question mark about your patriotism). Anyway, the obvious, and intelligent, answer would be that Russians are not part of our system since we are still a sovereign country as long as we can keep the Republicans from destroying it. Liberals (at least in its original intent, not the current definition right wingers give it) have been part of the system since the countries founding. So, their actions are not "interference", but part of the system.

However, you being a right winger, it is not a surprise that you would want an authoritarian form of government such as they have in Russia.
 
I have more respect for the Russians than I do the liberals
 
Its a hard question, more nuanced than one might expect.

The libs are more stupid and bungling, so easier to actually catch in the act. But they have 30% of the population, minions marching in mindless lockstep to whatever silly tune they start playing...so even with evidence abounding, caught red handed they say, see, Trump did it, Trump bad man.

The Russians are more secretive and cunning, hard to catch. But once caught the entire public is usually pretty much in agreement about the punishing any caught culprits.
 
Paperview said:
America was attacked by a hostile foreign government, and all you care about is protecting the attack, future attacks, and that hostile foreign government.

Nice going.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of brainless post that got us into this mess in the first place. This is the sort of crybaby sentiment found in North Korea where the baby Kim shakes his little fists in rage when other nations speak out against him -- and he views their opinions as attacks on his nation.

Way to set foreign policy back a century with intellectually dishonest rhetoric.
 
Paperview said:
America was attacked by a hostile foreign government, and all you care about is protecting the attack, future attacks, and that hostile foreign government.

Nice going.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate though, could we not say that Russia did us a favor by exposing Hillary and the DNC for the crooks they were? I mean, not even they dispute what Russia made us aware of, just that Russia should not have done it. Maybe Russia isn't such a hostile government after all.
 
Rich123 said:
Well James972,
No one should interfer with elections. Like republicans who Gerrymander the districts, or like republicans who use tactics to illiminate people from the voter roles,like republicans who intimidate voters at the polls. And the list goes on and on. Now how exactly do democrats interfer with elections?
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that Hillary and the DNC should not have colluded against Bernie?
 
Rich123 said:
Mycroft: Do you include Fox in the main stream media assertion you made above? Do you think the Wall Street Journal is main stream media?
Would you consider for the purpose of being fair and balanced reading the Wall Street Journal's main stories and the New York Times main stories for just one week and see how different they are or are not? You see the Wall Street Journal is generally considered conservative and is owned by Ruppard Murdock, while the New York Times is generally considered liberal. Notice I didn't ask you to read the New York Post which is also owned by Murdock but it really is a rag with headlines as catchy as (Anthony's Weener strikes again) . Anthony Weener is sick and the dems did right to force his resignation, but who wants to read trash like the Post? Really, if your just going to take Sean Hannity's word for it that the media is bias, maybe you might not be getting a fair and balanced view. Shouldn't you want to investigate this claim on your own?:2wave:
Click to expand...

The mainstream media have a left bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/
 
Mycroft said:
I consider all of them to be Mainstream Media. I consider all of them to be interfering with our election.

I don't want a media that tells people what to think. I don't want a media who trots out talking potato heads to give their interpretation of events or facts.

I want a media that presents facts. I want a media that asks questions without arguing about the answers.

I am capable of interpreting facts. I am capable of evaluating answers.

The Mainstream Media is interfering in the election process by trying to get people to think as THEY do. I'll think as I do.
Click to expand...

Would Love to see that, are Brietbart and FOX changing their format? You know, led by example.
 
Casper said:
Would Love to see that, are Brietbart and FOX changing their format? You know, led by example.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see it, too...but I'm not holding my breath.

All I can do is apply extreme skepticism to every source. It works for me. However, the useful idiots are too dumb/lazy/biased to follow my example. They suck up that swill and believe it without question.

The Mainstream Media takes advantage of those people in order to interfere in our elections.
 
Mycroft said:
I'd love to see it, too...but I'm not holding my breath.

All I can do is apply extreme skepticism to every source. It works for me. However, the useful idiots are too dumb/lazy/biased to follow my example. They suck up that swill and believe it without question.

The Mainstream Media takes advantage of those people in order to interfere in our elections.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Always do, far too much spin and half truths and out right lies out there, sadly one should not have to verify everything they read or hear before claiming it to be truth.

Sheep will always be Sheep
 
Casper said:
Would Love to see that, are Brietbart and FOX changing their format? You know, led by example.
Click to expand...

actually Fox and Breitbart are not MSM. They have a tiny audience compared to heavily biased MSM. THe MSM is the real threat to America, 1000 times more so than the Russians.
 
Old Trapper said:
Liberals (at least in its original intent, not the current definition right wingers give it) have been part of the system since the countries founding. So, their actions are not "interference", but part of the system.
Click to expand...

how could liberals have been part of the system when they are for big govt while the Revolution was for freedom from big govt?? Think!!!
 
gulfman said:
I have more respect for the Russians than I do the liberals
Click to expand...

definitely!! the Russians no longer want to be communists but our liberals do!!
 
James972 said:
how could liberals have been part of the system when they are for big govt while the Revolution was for freedom from big govt?? Think!!!
Click to expand...

If you knew your history, which you seem to lack any knowledge of as you lack any knowledge of Court proceedings, the Founders supported taxing only the wealthy, free public education, free healthcare for the poor, opposed income inequality, opposed unending corporate charters, opposed corporations involved in politics, opposed a permanent military force, opposed internationalism, and the list goes on. They were called "Classical Liberals". Look up the term, and try thinking for yourself for a change.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/19763-isolationist-so-s-your-old-founding-father
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
If you knew your history, which you seem to lack any knowledge of as you lack any knowledge of Court proceedings, the Founders supported taxing only the wealthy,
Click to expand...

yes but taxing them a very tiny amount so that govt then was 1% the size of todays on an inflation adjusted per capita basis. Today's liberals tax everyone to death to produce a govt 500 times larger and still all they ever need in more and more money. Do you understand now?
 
James972 said:
yes but taxing them a very tiny amount so that govt then was 1% the size of todays on an inflation adjusted per capita basis. Today's liberals tax everyone to death to produce a govt 500 times larger and still all they ever need in more and more money. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...

I understand your lack of knowledge, and not only of history but current events. While Trump has given an additional 1 Trillion dollars to the wealth he has also added 1.5 trillion to the national debt, cut social programs for the poor and the schools, is going after the ADA, and will add even more to the national debt if his budget plans goes the=rough while cutting medicare, social security,, and medicaid.

Reagan cut the taxes on the rich, and then had to increase them 11 times, and still he doubled the size of government, and tripled the national debt. Bush cut taxes on the wealthy, doubled the size of government, doubled the national debt, and gave us a recession. Obama allowed the tax cuts of Bush to continue, and you whine about his debt.

And now we have Trump, and a houseful of Republican clowns.

The History of U.S. Government Spending, Revenue, and Debt (1790-2015) - Metrocosm
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom