Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

The Democrats Are the Threat to Democracy


OldBrownsFan

Recommended Posts

They couldn’t care less that they’re now officially what they’ve claimed to see in Donald Trump.

For or two years, the Democratic Party has insisted that the American people must follow their lead and #Resist President Donald J. Trump at all costs. The Left has argued that Trump is unlike any leader that we’ve had in American history. According to the DNC, Trump’s presidency is more than just an inconvenience to their partisan agenda. Instead, it is a threat to America’s sacred democratic institutions.

You see, Trump is Hitler in their eyes (never mind that the Left has insinuated every Republican president was Hitler going back to at least Richard M. Nixon). According to the Left, Trump is the embodiment of neo-fascism who seeks to tear down our grand, egalitarian society and replace it with a stilted cult of personality.

What evidence does the Left proffer in defense of these outlandish claims?

They say that Trump loves autocrats, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. Of course, the evidence proves the contrary: Trump has been tougher on Russia than his predecessor and Trump threatened nuclear war against Kim Jong-un, which prompted the young North Korean dictator to — however briefly — come to his senses and seek a peaceful accommodation with the West.

 

The Left argues that Trump is out to kill NATO. In actuality, though, Trump’s tough love toward NATO has been exactly that: his actions have sent a much-needed jolt to the otherwise fraying alliance. Because of him, NATO members are starting to fully pitch in ways they’ve not done since the heady days of the Cold War.

Back in the United States, the Left decries the hated Orange Man in the White House as an autocrat-in-waiting by using his firing of a cadre of senior FBI and DOJ officials as proof-positive that Trump is both a Russian agent of influence, as well as a usurper to America’s democratic heritage. They believe that Trump is eviscerating the hallowed independence of the Department of Justice because he is seeking to prevent “the truth” of his duplicity in the 2016 election from getting out. All of this, of course, is easily proven to be false (never mind that the DOJ is not an independent branch of the government; it’s part of the Executive Branch which the president leads!).

In fact, Trump has spent the last two years having the legitimacy of his unprecedented election to the presidency challenged by unelected and unaccountable members of the U.S. intelligence community — all of whom have partisan axes to grind against Trump. The president fired FBI Director James Comey; he helped to remove senior FBI officials, like Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page; Trump revoked the security clearances of former officials, like John Brennan, not because he was hiding something from the world. Rather, Trump took these actions as a means of self-defense against former Obama officials masquerading as unbiased intelligence officers.

Fact is, the intelligence community — like the rest of the federal government — was weaponized by former President Barack Obama and used to punish political enemies of the Democratic Party.

From there, the Left whines about the eradication of the First Amendment in the form of President Trump’s attacks on the press. Yet, this is hardly unprecedented in the history of presidential relations with the press (the election of 1800 is a great example). Further, the major news networks are employing a disproportionate number of former senior Democratic Party operatives and policy wonks as “objective” news reporters and analysts.

Lastly, we have been told since 2016 that Trump disrespected America’s tradition of free-and-fair elections. Although, it has been the Left that has so categorically rejected the results of a free-and-fair election — 2016 — that they are now desperately struggling to steal critical elections in Florida and Arizona. The most hallowed institution in the country — its electoral system — is flagrantly being violated by leftist partisans who simply fail to accept that they have lost the 2018 midterms in both Florida and Arizona.

So, which is the party that fundamentally hates the United States again? Because it sounds like it’s the Democrats who really hate America (and you).

https://spectator.org/the-democrats-are-the-threat-to-democracy/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Why do you even waste your time with this stuff?

Because he has no interest is what is true, only what his far right "news" says. 

1. Post an article from a far/extreme right author

2. Search Facebook for a meme to use as a reply.

3. Start another thread when people stop responding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

Because he has no interest is what is true, only what his far right "news" says. 

1. Post an article from a far/extreme right author

2. Search Facebook for a meme to use as a reply.

3. Start another thread when people stop responding.

 

They are all far right to you. All you do is attack the source. If there are things not true then bring that out instead of constantly whining about a right wing source. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

They are all far right to you. All you do is attack the source. If there are things not true then bring that out instead of constantly whining about a right wing source. 

No, I do a bias check on sources. I don't read the far left garbage either. There are a lot less far left sources, I wonder why? 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/search/

It hard to fact check a piece that is all opinion. If you read the garbage article and can't tell how bias it is, you might be a Trump supporter.  If a "news" sources use "the left" or "the right" a lot it probably a garbage source.

Here you go..

https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-Bias-in-a-Newspaper-Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

No, I do a bias check on sources. I don't read the far left garbage either. There are a lot less far left sources, I wonder why? 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/search/

It hard to fact check a piece that is all opinion. If you read the garbage article and can't tell how bias it is, you might be a Trump supporter.  If a "news" sources use "the left" or "the right" a lot it probably a garbage source.

Here you go..

https://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-Bias-in-a-Newspaper-Article

Well you think Snopes is the gospel of fact checking as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center...so the very sites you use as your "go to" source for truth is biased against conservatives;

FACT-CHECKING SNOPES: WEBSITE’S POLITICAL ‘FACT-CHECKER’ IS JUST A FAILED LIBERAL BLOGGER

https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.b8a417d88741

 

*********So what you want us to believe your sources are the gospel? Give me a break. Go to the substance of what is being talked about and quit your whining about sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Well you think Snopes is the gospel of fact checking as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center...so the very sites you use as your "go to" source for truth is biased against conservatives;

FACT-CHECKING SNOPES: WEBSITE’S POLITICAL ‘FACT-CHECKER’ IS JUST A FAILED LIBERAL BLOGGER

https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.b8a417d88741

 

*********So what you want us to believe your sources are the gospel? Give me a break. Go to the substance of what is being talked about and quit your whining about sources.

Like I said if you read the garbage article that started this thread and don't see the bias, I can't help you. The two link you posted neither talk to the bias check link I posted. Sorry they have been right a lot more than they have been wrong. 

They have their methodology right there on the site.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media Bias 101: What Journalists Really Think -- and What the Public Thinks About Them

Decades of Research Showing What Journalists Think, How Journalists Vote, What the Public Thinks About the Media, and What Journalists Say About Media Bias
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the media leans left???? No Sheet. That's why you need to check your sources. Just because a lot of sources are bias does NOT justify you sticking with bias sources. That is why bias sources are doing so well(ratings), people keep going back to them. An honest person will look for reputable sources, not just go to the bias sources that match your opinion. There are reputable right-center sources out there that may lean right, but they don't lie to their audience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

What the media leans left???? No Sheet. That's why you need to check your sources. Just because a lot of sources are bias does NOT justify you sticking with bias sources. That is why bias sources are doing so well(ratings), people keep going back to them. An honest person will look for reputable sources, not just go to the bias sources that match your opinion. There are reputable right-center sources out there that may lean right, but they don't lie to their audience.

 

If you want to make that argument wouldn't you be better off saying where something posted (such as the above article you call garbage is lying). You're not doing that. I see almost all the media today as being biased but usually it is NOT because of any lying it is because of only presenting one side of the story and usually there are two sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

If you want to make that argument wouldn't you be better off saying where something posted (such as the above article you call garbage is lying). You're not doing that. I see almost all the media today as being biased but usually it is NOT because of any lying it is because of only presenting one side of the story and usually there are two sides.

No. It isn't just presently two sides. It using loaded words, lying by omission, story selections, and some that straight lie. That is why there is a grading system. You can be bias and be a good new sources. National Review is bias, but they are reputable news sources. Infowars is not a reputable news sources, they write click bait garbage, full of half truths and out right lies. It is not OK to read/watch info wars because more news sources lean left than right. 

I don't want to waste my time reading a garbage article, so I don't bother with anything far left or far right. It's waste of time and those who do are what is wrong with the media. You eat garbage and they will sell you some more.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

No. It isn't just presently two sides. It using loaded words, lying by omission, story selections, and some that straight lie. That is why there is a grading system. You can be bias and be a good new sources. National Review is bias, but they are reputable news sources. Infowars is not a reputable news sources, they write click bait garbage, full of half truths and out right lies. It is not OK to read/watch info wars because more news sources lean left than right. 

I don't want to waste my time reading a garbage article, so I don't bother with anything far left or far right. It's waste of time and those who do are what is wrong with the media. You eat garbage and they will sell you some more.

 

 

We have one thing we can agree on. You will never see me post anything  from Infowars. 

I also think National Review is a good source but in your case my guess is you think a little more favorably towards National Review because of their reputation as being "never Trumpers"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Because it is a political comment section board? I'm sure that is it.

I get this is the political board

 

I don't get why'd you even waste your time with an article like this. I don't get what part of your brain could read this and go "yep, that's legit."

I mean, I know you really just want to read something you know you already agree with

And I know your brain works differently. What makes you believe in religion so much. That study was posted. I'd say that factors in here, but who knows for sure. 

But damn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OldBrownsFan said:

We have one thing we can agree on. You will never see me post anything  from Infowars. 

I also think National Review is a good source but in your case my guess is you think a little more favorably towards National Review because of their reputation as being "never Trumpers"...

You mean someone who values truth doesn't like a guy that lies all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I get this is the political board

 

I don't get why'd you even waste your time with an article like this. I don't get what part of your brain could read this and go "yep, that's legit."

I mean, I know you really just want to read something you know you already agree with

And I know your brain works differently. What makes you believe in religion so much. That study was posted. I'd say that factors in here, but who knows for sure. 

But damn. 

If the article is not "legit" then you should point out where it is lying. Since you brought up studies on the "religious brain":

Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function

https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Right because in your mind since past admin lied it's OK that this one rarely tells the truth. Goes with Bill raped people, so It's OK that Trump did too. 

A lot of credible evidence Clinton did rape Juanita Brodderick...and Bill had an enabler in Hillary who was an attack dog on those women who claimed they were sexually assaulted by her husband. Of course back then you never heard much from the liberal media about how we have to believe women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

If the article is not "legit" then you should point out where it is lying. Since you brought up studies on the "religious brain":

Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function

https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/

 

 

Oh man, I can't wait to look into that one...

 

No one is going to spend the time refuting every ridiculous article on here. We all have full time jobs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

If the article is not "legit" then you should point out where it is lying. Since you brought up studies on the "religious brain":

Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function

https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/

 

 

OK let me gets this straight. You link to a Christian ministry, that in turn links to the Dailymail. The Dailymail links to the journal, but not to the actual study. 

The study has 38 participants. - Well that;s a tiny sample size. 

AND - "Each of these participants said they held significant religious beliefs, and the majority held moderate to extremely conservative political beliefs." 

The findings, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, reveal that people whose brains were targeted by TMS reported 32.8 per cent less belief in God, angels, or heaven. 

Less belief, not no belief. All of the participants believed in God.

In another lesson for you about Bias news sources. Your "Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function". The site is lying for Jesus

The conclusion the scientist came too were: New research involving a psychologist from the University of York has revealed for the first time that both belief in God and prejudice towards immigrants can be reduced by directing magnetic energy into the brain.

Non Cheetos Jesus that is a great link. So the next time I have to deal with a evangelical that hates immigrants I can just ask them to hold a couple magnetic next to their head.  Bahahhaahaha.

 Here is the actual study

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/3/387/2375059

 

You keep on getting your facts filter for you..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

OK let me gets this straight. You link to a Christian ministry, that in turn links to the Dailymail. The Dailymail links to the journal, but not to the actual study. 

The study has 38 participants. - Well that;s a tiny sample size. 

AND - "Each of these participants said they held significant religious beliefs, and the majority held moderate to extremely conservative political beliefs." 

The findings, published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, reveal that people whose brains were targeted by TMS reported 32.8 per cent less belief in God, angels, or heaven. 

Less belief, not no belief. All of the participants believed in God.

In another lesson for you about Bias news sources. Your "Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function". The site is lying for Jesus

The conclusion the scientist came too were: New research involving a psychologist from the University of York has revealed for the first time that both belief in God and prejudice towards immigrants can be reduced by directing magnetic energy into the brain.

Non Cheetos Jesus that is a great link. So the next time I have to deal with a evangelical that hates immigrants I can just ask them to hold a couple magnetic next to their head.  Bahahhaahaha.

 Here is the actual study

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/11/3/387/2375059

 

You keep on getting your facts filter for you..

 

 

LOL... that was the first thing I googled and sorry you wasted whatever part of your life it took to research it.

The big bridge the atheist has to cross and the illogic of atheism is to believe that out of nothing came the universe and everything in it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

LOL... that was the first thing I googled and sorry you wasted whatever part of your life it took to research it.

The big bridge the atheist has to cross and the illogic of atheism is to believe that out of nothing came the universe and everything in it.

 

 

Right because a magic wizard creating the universe out of nothing is some how makes more sense?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Right because a magic wizard creating the universe out of nothing is some how makes more sense?

 

I think you can make the argument for the existence of God but let's say that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved isn't it illogical for an atheist to say conclusively  "there is no God". 

I can understand the agnostic but not the atheist. The agnostic says he doesn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I think you can make the argument for the existence of God but let's say that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved isn't it illogical for an atheist to say conclusively  "there is no God". 

I can understand the agnostic but not the atheist. The agnostic says he doesn't know.

Ah the labeling game.

a·the·ist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
 
It gets tiring when the religious try to make a negative an assertion. When do we get to the part where you telling me what I believe? 🙂
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Ah the labeling game.

a·the·ist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
 
It gets tiring when the religious try to make a negative an assertion. When do we get to the part where you telling me what I believe? 🙂
 
 
 

Believe what you want but to explain the existence of the universe and to assume it invented itself or created itself is rather odd...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...