They don't.
But they have their Trump haters, too, some of which are expat Americans. They'd also love to have such a good economy. And being an island, they don't have to worry about invading hordes of immigrants looking for a free ride.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump: I always want to tell the truth. When I can, I tell the truth
- Thread starter Gold Dragon
- Start date
They don't.
But they have their Trump haters, too, some of which are expat Americans. They'd also love to have such a good economy. And being an island, they don't have to worry about invading hordes of immigrants looking for a free ride.
Then they ignored Obama as he did more ti divide this country than any other President
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Your ad hominem, which I consider beneath you, is just as easily interpreted as willful ignorance on your part, but in any case shall not go unchallenged. I do not believe any opinion just because.
It is well known and obvious that the MSM and Hollywood have been using their considerable influence to push an increasingly Democrat/Progressive/Feminist/Marxist/ anti-Christian agenda for decades with too little to counter it and them. In other words, the "fourth estate" has for too long been successfully extremely biased against God and against those who prefer his standards of righteousness be upheld, at least locally if not nationally. To put it plainly, the damning lies and deception of the devil have tended to prevail over the airwaves (with a nod to "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience," Eph 2:2b).
It would be naïve to think this has happened independently of international entities of similar influence.
The Internet has ushered in a new era challenging that Satanic stranglehold. I do not claim this "fifth estate" is entirely successful. I do not at all intend that anyone should swallow hook, line, and sinker any blog or post no matter how tempting, because it is possible to go wrong in any number of ways. What I claim is that Mika Brzezinski inadvertently exposed a core truth, namely that the MSM is all about messaging, "messaging" designed to "control exactly what people think." At their core, this is who they are--the MSM is intentionally Orwellian, and in the worst way. Trump has done a lot to expose them, and to undermine their nefarious efforts. It does not at all mean that whatever he says is true, or that whatever he does is right. That is a separate issue.
It is always possible that given two sides, both could be wrong. When it comes to bottom lines, I stand with Simon Peter: The Lord Jesus alone has "the words of eternal life;" I believe and am sure that he is the "Christ, the Son of the living God," (ref John 6:68f).
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
The human mind is such an interesting thing and my job forces me to try to understand the minds of my patients. The conspiracy theorist's minds are often the most disturbing to try to understand and the most difficult to reason with. They have created a self fulfilling construct in their mind that only allows information in that reinforces that construct and interprets all opposing information as part of a vast conspiracy, no matter how unlikely that conspiracy is. The ability to calculate how probable and how improbable something is becomes disconnected with reality and is seen only through the lens of the conspiracy theory.
I have heard so many different conspiracy theories about so many different things from patients, folks on the internet, debunking sites, etc. They all follow a very common pattern of human psychology and stem our overpowering desire to make sense of a complex frightening chaotic world with simple answers that our brains can wrap their minds around. So instead of trying to learn about all these complexities that are overwhelming and challenge our understanding of the world, our brains construct shortcuts to make sense of things, especially things we don't like. The internet allows people from similar backgrounds and with similar anxieties about the world to reinforce those constructs.
It is much more probable that the connections they see are simply the result of very common things like human greed, self interest, incompetence, laziness, etc which are also the qualities of humanity that make coordinating a vast conspiracy of millions of people almost impossible to maintain well for very long.
What is more likely, that Mika is somehow in on a vast media conspiracy that accidently slipped up about it yet they allowed that slip up to copied all over the Internet? Or that she is a bumbling reporter who got too excited about attacking Trump that she couldn't get her point across?
For the record, the USA does not have a free press. It has yellow journalism, for better or worse. Trump and others have every right to fight yellow journalism. Look what the New York Times did to McCain. They said that he was a racist and an adulterer. They put it on the front page. That is yellow journalism. McCain was a loser but the New York Times is yellow.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
When we talk about the human mind, its myriad influences, and tendencies, we are on the same page. Fallibility is the human condition. When we talk about conspiracy, it gets a bit murkier. One may imagine a roomful of illuminati laying out their plans. There may be small such conspiracies, e.g., rigging a DNC outcome, but that is beside the point here. What we are dealing with is broader, more fundamental, and unsurprisingly feeds itself via its own biased worldview.
Mika clearly bumbled and bungled her message big league. But honest reporters do not fear someone might undermine their messaging. Why? Because unbiased journalists don’t have a message, they have a factual report. Just give me all of the facts, and I will interpret them, if such is necessary. But for them, this just will not do. Why? Because, without saying so, they are marketing a political message. Whether you buy or not, you should at least realize this is the case.
Mika accused Trump of what the MSM is most guilty, trying to monopolize minds via messaging. They are not used to the competition. But free press is about expressing opposing views. We may be entering an era where that can really happen. The further problem is whether people will be able to think critically enough for it to make the right difference. But make no mistake--bias is on every side. It is a lie that the MSM is a bastion of truth, or even facts. Banish the thought.
People actually pay to have your opinion? Priceless, I block you for free, & it saves me grief, time, & apparently, if you are to be believed, money. Occasionally curiosity gets the best of me when I see half of a conversation, but........when I find out what I missed I realize why I blocked in the first place. Maybe instead of JD, MD, RN, MA, MBA or any other titles, we should require an R or D or I, so people will know going in who they are trusting. The divide is real, unfortunately & I don’t want to put a dime in a progressive’s pocket. EVERYONE would then become an indepenent di di mau.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
All media makes mistakes, sure. Many spin the news to fit the narrative they are trying to convey, sure. All writers, journalists, message board posters see the world and write things with their own biases, sure. Is there ever a truly unbiased writing, no. But there are clearly those who try to be as unbiased and fact based as possible and there are those who go out of there way to spin a political message. Our job as discerning readers is to try to differentiate the two.
This same approach is one I have to use every day with how I evaluate medical research to make clinical decisions. I need to look for biases based on my training and experience and in the end, make decisions based on information that is from the least biased sources. That isn't just a feeling based on what I agree with but there is a process to evaluating bias in an entire branch of study called critical appraisal and is a key aspect of Evidence Based Medicine. Does the best critical appraisal mean the conclusion is never wrong? Of course not. But it is a safeguard against obvious bias.
It is unfortunate that for some in the US that decision of discernment is distilled to "if you are on my side of the political spectrum you tell the truth and everyone else is lying". A large group of "news" sources in the US are basing many of their stories on the statements and opinions of one man who has a clearly documented historical record of making statements that have very little if any basis in fact. He even admitted this in my quote in the OP.
That is not how the rest of the democratic world looks at bias in the free press and that is not the lens our news sources see the world.
Last edited:
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Your training does not seem to be helping here. You seem to have it nearly all wrong. Everyone is lying--spin can be the "best" kind--but Trump supporters understand this better than most. People back the person they believe has their best interests at heart. These people never liked the hypocritical PC culture. Trump evidently noticed an opening and took it. Eight years of Obama helped.
The MSM attacked Trump first. And they didn’t just attack, they piled on. It didn’t work, so they doubled down after the election with all-out hate. They just underestimated his ability to withstand the onslaught, and fulfill promises. They’ve turned him into a very successful ‘everyman’. Unless it was intentional, they really blew it. At least for now. I don’t see them getting smarter. Mika’s momentary slip aside, they couldn’t be better liars.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
You are projecting how you believe things on everyone else. Yes there are many people like you who believe information based on this emotional approach that usually has very little to do with how objectively truthful the person they are getting information from may be about a topic.
But there are many people who can set aside their gut feelings and objectively see based on evidence when people they inherently trust and are on their "side" are lying or just wrong/ignorant about a topic. It sounds like you are saying you are not one of those people that can see things objectively and instead you interpret information by who it is coming from and not by what that information actually says.
Last edited:
Do you think that Trump voters and other Republicans are just a lower form of evolution?
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, not mutually exclusive, but perhaps I should have used the subjunctive, or said “a journalist reporting honestly.” And I didn’t say “lying all the time,” or “in every case.” But try for the big picture and not get pedantic here.
I made a generalization. It matters not if a couple of people back (promote or vote for) a candidate they believe will act against their best interests. Again, big picture. And it is you who projected: “feel” onto “believe” and ended up getting it all wrong.
Sorting through all the lies swirling around in the media is a difficult prospect. Who is counting them? I can’t clap that fast. But I am not using gut feeling. I recognize the patterns, the phraseology, the hype and emotion, and know how to look from different sides and weigh options.
Back to the media. How about taking a look at just one example I posted to and give your own observations? That would be better than the generalizing. Here's the link:
Neighbor Lady Fuming over Church's 'Vote Pro-Life' Sign
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I would appreciate clarification because I can't address your statements when they conflict each other. Is everyone lying or are some people trying to tell the truth? Is spin/messaging good or not? Are there some honest journalists that try to report based on independently verifiable facts/evidence or not?
How do you know someone has your best interests at heart if it isn't by feeling or believing?
All of us feel that our parents have our best interests at heart when we are children. Sometimes they do and act accordingly. Sometimes they have our best interests at heart but through ignorance or error, do things that are opposed to our interests. Sometimes they outright lie and don't have our best interests at heart but are often good at spinning things to appear that way. So how do we end up knowing if they really have our best interests at heart? It is usually when we grow up and can challenge that notion and try to see from an outsiders point of view evidence of whether their actions and words and the consequences of those actions and words truly had our best interests at heart.
That is what I want us all to do. Look at the evidence to find the truth. Not who the speaker represents.
Last edited:
Well, the Democrats probably would disagree with you because they have said that the Republicans are deplorables and incorrigibles. I think that you would like England better than the USA because they have a distinct class system, a stagnant but government-managed economy, a dreary bankrupt medical system, and a definite repression of God-given rights, not to mention a deference to the adherents of Allah.
Darwin taught that there is evolution in humans and that whites were superior.
Last edited:
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Again I am not democrat so denigrating them has no impact on me. But if you want to accurately look at the evidence of Hillary's quote, she was not addressing all Republicans, only half. Either way, it was an idiotic thing to say for a seasoned politician and she is quoted as regretting that statement.
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/
And what she says does not represent all democrats although I am sure many agree with the sentiments that were expressed. I do not.
It would take too long to address all of these. Suffice to say, I am truly blessed to be able to do the work I do in a country that values healtg for its population using public and private options to address those needs. And I can practice medicine for the most part without worrying about costs and making my patients go bankrupt. And one of the key values espoused when I became an Australian citizen was the ethic of being able to give everyone a "fair go". Whether we actually achieve that is a different story.
In Australia, land of the 'fair go', not everyone gets an equal slice of the pie
Darwin was a product of his time and yes that was the prevailing view. His family members were pioneers in the field of eugenics based on that flawed view of race and genes. Fortunately his work in evolution was not primarily in human evolution where those social biases might have significantly influenced his writings. His work was in plant and animal evolution which human racism has no influence.
Hillary only regrets making a political mistake, but then President Obama, as he titles himself in opposition to the Constitution, feels the same way. Of course, Darwin taught that man descended from the apes and that the white race was the superior race. Most Americans are old earthers and think that God could have created man by evolution as science shows so then you have to say that the father of evolution would be the expert on human evolution.
The USA has always had more freedom than the British empire and the UK has sunk into a sort of police state where Scotland Yard does not chase down murderers in London but scours Facebook and Twitter for hate crimes. Liberals like you think that big government will work if you can stifle the opposition but that was tried in Venezuela and the Cubans are experts at stifling opposition--some say that men were crucified in Venezuela to achieve a socialistic paradises. Where liberals like you and Obama go wrong is that the government is the result of wealth not the producer of wealth.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Sorry I should clarify. Darwin's seminal work, that we base evolution on, the origin of species, was not about human evolution. It was based on plant and animal evidence.
He did later write about human evolution in the Descent of Man and this was where his biases did come out as it was primarily about the evolution of social concepts. In it he says humans evolved from "some lower form" and compared our bodies to animals and does put us in the same category of apes. But it didn't dig deeply into evolution leading to humans but focuses more on evolution of social constructs once humans were there.
Last edited:
So Darwin did say that some people were a lower form of evolution than others? Don't you believe in evolution?
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Again, go for the big picture. Are you claiming, or is anyone claiming, that Trump constantly utters nothing but lies, or that everything he says is a complete lie? Answer: No. You don't need clarification, you need to look at the big picture. I am not saying that everyone, or even anyone, lies all the time in every way. What I am saying is that the media has a definite bias, a trend, a narrative, a message that they want to convey, that they want people to adopt, preferably without coherent argument, either because they don't really have a coherent argument or because people don't reason well or both.
One bias I see constantly pushed is that the white male (especially if "straight") is the ultimate bad guy. I just encountered it yet again, by a straight white male. But don't despair. If you fit the category, you can yet justify your existence by becoming a self-loathing, virtue signaling, honky hating, mind numbingly hypocritical Democrat, or the political counterpart if abroad. It is unpleasant, but politics generally offers two (or more) evils--the lesser or none, your choice. But someone will be chosen.
The most dangerous is not one who is a bad liar and admits he doesn't always tell the truth. It's one that is very subtle, very practiced in deceptive arts, using tested techniques to sway subconsciously. Go look at the link I provided (see below) and try to identify all the ways the reporting is biased, if at all. Post them there. I'm watching the thread, so I will see your post. Also, take a look at my brief comments. Note what you agree with and disagree with. Let's put it to the test.
Neighbor Lady Fuming over Church's 'Vote Pro-Life' Sign