The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

QAZ, I stopped reading your contributions on this thread way back when. I can guess what you’re saying. I can guess you have not read any of the links but , as Randy points out, anybody can throw links out there, whether they are to facts or not, does not seem to matter to .Randy or …well, a certain group.
I’m just happy that, after 8 years of ‘us’ putting up with the attempted destruction of much of the American way (you remember - ‘He’ wanted to fundamentally transform the hated United States) and not rioting, not crying in safe places, not closing down universities when the opposition was scheduled to speak, not closing off roads in a hissy fit, not being ‘snowflakes’ - we can fight back at all the B.S. and maybe make some progress.

It’s a ‘cold civil war’ now and I hope it calms down, but with the nutty Leftists trying to tear everything down, and they never sleep nor slumber, I think things are going to get worse.

I think folks will wise up. I’m sure more folks will vote Democrats in Congress, in a couple of years. And the Democrats, will have a much better candidate than Hillary - in 4 years. Not that I’m a Democrat, mind you. I’m really an independent. But I think this is how the 'cosmic cards", will play themselves out. Unless Trump makes some exceptionally, good moves.

And if the “cosmic cards” play right, what will happen to Trump? He will write a book, go on speaking tours, be interviewed by the “liberal media” and continue to make money - as a billionaire. And share on Twitter, all the mistakes, of the** then** current administration. Perhaps even get his own TV and/or radio show. And be more popular than Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh - put together :exclamation: :wink:

WEll I think the populace did ‘wise up’ this last election. I’m no fan of either party, but I do believe that IF the economy really starts to ‘lift all ships’, the GOP , idiots that most of them are, will stay in power for a good stretch.
Really, there aren’t any good Dem candidates on the scene right now either.

BTW, the Federalist Papers show that the Founders were well aware that democracies do not last long; they built as many safeguards into the system as they could, but they recognized that the DOI/Constitution would only work if the nation was composed of industrious, well-meaning and good people. IN their estimation, not very possible, but much better than totalitarianism.

Lets’ consider Trump’s own words as to “one of the reasons” he fired Comey:

Trump has nothing to fear from the truth, but he does from fake news.
We did not hear much outrage when Hillary sold a lot of U.S. uranium to Russia, did we? Why?

breitbart.com/big-government … tory-sham/

And it’s clear that Russia would have benefitted from Obama 2.0 (Hillary) much more than from a Trump win.

nationalreview.com/node/446148/print

An article of real substance

Well, based upon Wiki at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review, it says this:

Why can’t I just pull a Steve and David here, and say this publication suffers from “conservative bias” :question: :laughing:

You said it, qaz. That’s it exactly.

No that’s not right, and I’m surprised at you, Don.
The fact is there has been much fake news aka lies - I linked to a bunch but who cares, right? And the Breitbart web link - more fact, but who cares?
Much easier to moan about Trump, before you see what he actually accomplishes.

And damn, how many times do I have to say a pox on BOTH parties?? I’d like the truth, that’s it plain and simple. I don’t care who is right or wrong - do you??

More fake news which perhaps you have forgotten? The violence at Trump rallies, it was reported, was Trump people being stirred to violence.

Then project Veritas interviewed the DEMOCRATIC operative who arranged the violent acts - hired street people, union workers, etc. to perpetuate the fights and disturbances to make Trump look bad.

Those are the pesky facts, again. No media bias? Open your eyes.

d1sb17b1leotpq.cloudfront.net/r … llies.html

But I say the bias is deliberate and encouraged - by the networks. As opposed to something like the BBC, that tries to be objective.

Now when I watch a BBC news cast, they fill the news with stories around the world. And mention things happening in countries, we wouldn’t consider newsworthy.

There’s only so many times, when a massacre occurs. Or North Korea fires a missile. So what do you fill the news hour or half hour with? Well, what Trump is up to. Or his administration. Or whoever is in power. And encourage the commentaries, to get folks up in arms.

Why? So you turn to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, etc. Watch the station. Boost the ratings. And - most importantly - buy the sponsors products.

It’s show business.

As far as the global hack goes, here’s an informative article from Scientific American:

Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers

HFPZ said

I am surprised at you Randy, you have to know that the BBC is their top notch version of ‘network media news’ :laughing:

More fake news which perhaps you have forgotten?

They don’t let us forget even if you want to forget! Recently the left wing media AKA “groupthink” accused Trump of firing Comey because he was getting close to proving collusion between Trump and Russia! After 10 months of investigation there is not a shred of evidence to support this but the “groupthink” party on the left wants a special prosecutor. The law says to have a Special Prosecutor you need “probable cause” and there isn’t any, not a shred.

Today the Wash Post runs a story that when Team Trump met the Russian Ambassador recently at the White House, Trump disclosed highly classified info to the Russians! The “leftist, groupthink” media like CNN,MSNBC,NY Times,NBC,ABC & CBS immediately copied the story even though the source is the well known “unnamed sources.” The folks at the meeting with Trump were H.R. Macmasters & Secy of State Rex Tillarson & Dana Powers and they all deny the story. They all say Trump did not disclose military info but talked about possible methods of attack by ISIS since Russia & the USA have a common enemy. But “the left” just got their fresh batch of red meat to energize them for another run at Trump and they are not going to be influenced by any silly facts.
You think there may be bias in the media? It’s way beyond just bias!

Well said.

Here’s a new, free, downloadable pamphlet - a .pdf - 95 pages but they are short.
Anyone of us on this thread is aware of the deep deep divide in the country, and there seems to be absolutely no middle ground.
The booklet tries to show the reasons for the predicament. It’s very well researched and written, educational, and it will convince NOBODY. Because, it appears, everyone is already convinced of things, facts notwithstanding.
And by the way, it’s written by a conservative, so not worth the cyberspace it’s written on. :wink:

So with a deep sense of futility, here’s the link to the download.

frontpagemag.com/sites/defau … ericas.pdf

Yesterday, I walked into a Dollar General store. I glanced at the National Enquirer, on the shelf. There was a picture of Trump. The headline was Trump’s plan for world peace. If I had more time, I would have glanced through the publication - for more details.

But it got me to thinking. The National Enquirer has been around, for a long time. So I can assume the story is 100% accurate - with no bias. Right :question:

This headline raises so many questions. Like:

What is a definition of bias?
How do we know something is bias?
Can we measure and/or prove bias scientifically, through any of our known academic disciplines?
Does some “expert” or “respectable” media outlet….labeling something as “bias” - make it so?

Or to put it in terms of epistemology: how do we know what we know, in regards to bias?

How do we know, for example, that this headline wasn’t true :question: A horrifying thought crossed my mind. We might even have aliens, advising Trump and his administration :exclamation: :astonished: :open_mouth:

What is a definition of bias?
How do we know something is bias?
Can we measure and/or prove bias scientifically, through any of our known academic disciplines?
Does some “expert” or “respectable” media outlet…labeling something as “bias” - make it so?

Years ago a Supreme Court Justice was asked to define pornography and he couldn’t but he did say he will know it when he sees it!

Additionally as i mentioned before the anti-Trump media is well beyond bias, it’s a consistent coordinated attack to discredit him. Even the Russians hacking the election story the Dems have relentlessly pushed may not be true. Seth Rich the DNC staffer who was murdered allegedly sent Wikileaks 44K e-mails with 17K attachments. The story that the Russians hacked the DNC was not determined by the FBI because the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI inspect it’s computers. It was determined by a firm the DNC privately hired.

Wiki gave a definition of “I know it when I see it” at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it:

I think the last part of the definition, is very important:

Reminds me of this guy :wink:

I think that if person X supports and defends person Y, no matter what Y does, and if any negative stories about person Y comes out in most media, but are dismissed by Y and his supporters as “false news”, and if the reports of media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are regarded as “lying”, and their news reports are regarded as false, by Y and his supporters, while media 13 and 14 which report only positive things about Y are regarded by Y and his supporters as “the truth”, then I think X is biased in favour of Y.