Data does not lie. Republicans deliver and believe more BS than the Democrats

The meeting was never presented as one with the Russian GOVERNMENT and I have yet to see Hillary was charged with a crime from PAYING FOR information from Russia against Trump even though it was fake information.

 

Very big of you to admit that Dems deliver BS. The ability to push BS is in direct proportion to the level of power. The level of power is in direct proportion to the amount of tax dollars they control. Its all BS, from abortion laws to vax mandates. Dems control more of our money and therefor push more BS.

 

So then, what are we to trust and use?

 

LoL interesting you'd invoke "mother nature" after suggesting men can get pregnant.

 

Not when I proved Trump didn't say any white nationalists were "fine people".

 

And Hunter's laptop, despite the videos, pics and hard evidence that it was real.

That or maybe some crackhead fingerpaintings like Hunter.

 

Nothing, and your brain, respectively.

 

Yeah he shoulda started a "foundation" and took millions from governments that way like Clinton.

 

Another lie that far too many on the Left swallowed as fact and peddled as truth:
Will the New York Times apologize for lying about Officer Sicknick’s death?
'On Jan. 8, The New York Times reported that Officer Sicknick had died after being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher by violent Trump supporters. This story was quickly repeated by numerous other media outlets. Millions believed it.'

'The story was false.'

'Sicknick died of two strokes, which occurred many hours after the invasion of the Capitol. The blue-check-media fallback was that bear spray used by the Capitol invaders had caused the officer’s strokes.'

'That also turned out to be false. After a curiously long delay, the DC medical examiner’s office released its report this week, and it concludes that Sicknick suffered no injuries, internal or external. He didn’t have a reaction to bear spray, the chief medical examiner reported.'

'So the single most important “fact” about the events of Jan. 6 was false.'

Many on the Right, wise to the perpetual lies from too many on the Left that fit their false narrative a little too well, immediately expressed doubt. Please link me to your timely posts that illustrates that you too wisely rejected this BS like much of the Right did.

 

You are quite welcome to your opinions here. Though I do find it rather funny that you think Republicans have been ran by extremists for the last 30 years. But I would suggest not basing standards on statistics. Especially flawed statistics like the one you presented in the OP.

 

Reagan said "Trust but verify". He was wrong. Verify first.

When a source reports against its known bias the credibility of the report is enhanced, but reason cannot justify a leap of faith.

 

You try to find as many articles that address the issue as you can, simply because humans have to have tangible things with which to evaluate an issue.

If the other side can debate the issue with better articles, then your opinion changes.

Like with our forefathers, this is not about anyone deciding what is right or wrong but about Democracy choosing the way to go. The majority picking the direction.

 

You did not answer the question. The question is "how does anyone choose the way to go?"

As far as trust is concerned, we have determined that if one looks for the bad things one will always find the bad in everything and everywhere. As such, the idea is to choose which brings more good than bad and go with that. How to you choose if everything has some bad?

 

Trusting any politician/party reveals gullibility on our part, nor trustworthiness on their part. The letter by their name makes no difference.

 

You are not addressing the question.

How does anyone choose the way to go? The guidelines to follow?

 

More government equals less choice. Some people choose the security of big government making their decisions for them and are willing to give up freedom. The guidelines are different for everyone. For me, government power should be reduced to the amount you would want Trump to have.

 

You appear to buy the lie that Fascism is, by definition "right wing". It is not. It is a totalitarian form of government that controls every aspect of the lives of individuals through collusion of big government with big business (if it owns the means of production, it is called "communism" instead.) Today, given what is happening in big tech? That people were fired if they wouldn't take an experimental injection even if they had already had the disease and had natural immunity? That isn't the Republican right. That is the fascist Left as represented by the Democrat Party. You know the one.

 

You are evading the question.

Figure it this way, we all need to choose what government and guidelines to follow. We need to do that based on reality and not on fantasy. It will not be everything we want as that never happens. Nonetheless, we need to find something that our entire country can follow so that we are the "United" States and not 52 individual countries. How do you go about choosing which you can live with and which will make you move elsewhere.

Who do you believe and who do you immediately throw out the window? What are the parameters you will use to make that decision? How do you actually weigh the negatives and the positives of each side so a real/viable/based-on-reality decision is made.

That is the question I am asking. I do not want to hear that this problem or that problem is happening. Figure that all of these problems do exist to some degree. Who do you decide to get married to and why. Or are you planning to say single and move somewhere else?

 

One doesn't need someone else's opinion to form an opinion. And that is what sociology presents. Opinions. Not facts. The human condition can never be summed up in a single article or study. It can't even be summed up in a thousand studies. That is why every single study presented by sociologists are based on at least some assumptions. In the case of the study that you presented the assumption was made that the fact checkers were actually fact checking and not interjecting their own opinions on the matter into their "fact checks". That they only presented facts. Which has been found to be false.

If you really want to know what direction to go, base that direction on actual provable facts presented by the hard sciences. Do not go by soft sciences. For that you can go by your own sense of morality as it will be just as valid as anything that soft science can present. Observe people for yourself and expand your observations to people outside of your personal circle. Maybe you'll find that Republicans are not near as extreme as you may think. Also, you may think you're doing just that by coming to a forum like this... you're not. Forums are composed of a small subset of subsets of people. You're not going to find what you're looking for in a forum.

 

You forget one thing that is important and that is that no one has the right to put others at risk and all governments have the duty to insure the safety of their citizens. This is NOT fascism.

In addition, it is very difficult to institute fascism in a Democratic environment, given that it is the majority of the people that decide and not just the few in power.

 

What you are outlining here is anarchy. Keep in mind that if we do as you suggest, everyone would be doing what they want to do. That is fine if you live in an island all by yourself but if you live in a nation where working together is required, each and every person has to give in on some things. The question is what you give in on. Our forefathers decided that this would be a Democracy where the majority decides and as such, if we want to live in the United States, we need to "accept" that none of us will have everything we want and that all of us will have to accept what the majority decides.

The Democrats believe in elections and in the majority choosing. The Republicans believe their way is the right and only way and try to force their beliefs on all of us even when the majority says otherwise.

 

"Für ihre Siherheit"

Sounds familiar.

 

No sir, you are trying to restrict my answer. I draw the line at what can be done without government. Marriage, for example, is a religious invention that does not require government. People should decide the parameters of their own relationships and not be forced to choose from a government/religious menu.

 

Lol.

Says the person posting for a "reputable" source that only requires the authors PAY to have their blog "editorialized".

When your WordPress blog doesn't gain enough notoriety, pay these people to pretend it's more than just an opinion piece.

Lmao.

And these are the non-gullible ones?

 

Lol.

So the bloggers asked politically loaded questions, and if you didn't provide their preferred answer, then you are easily manipulated?

And to think these "authors" walk around from a position of intellectual superiority.

Good God. The irony.