"Democracy is Teetering"

progaardvark wrote: ^Maybe you forgot that you use Gish gallops as a debating technique?

But often defeated with Brandolini's Law. 

^Maybe you forgot that you use Gish gallops as a debating technique? 

Of course I know where you’re going … falsification could happen through making our financial system completely transparent. Follow the 35 trillion dollars. Show that politicians are not influenced by whoever it is that we are owing the money to.

^ I never called it a “world government”. And I repeatedly said that I have a “suspicion”. I do not have conclusive evidence for anything specific, and I never claimed to. 

^ That's possible too. You know, the world is not black or white...

Yes, Vox and Politico are rather left leaning media outlets. Le Monde and Wikipedia are not (I also linked to those, remember?). But, having a - right or left leaning - bias doesn't necessarily mean to distort factual information. And that is what you did.

You know, I've been talking about media literacy before... If you cannot make the difference between factual information and opinion, then there is a lot of work to do. Bias is not necessarily discrediting the information: it can give a political/ideological reading of the information, but the information remains the same, as long as it is presented correctly (that is: distinguishing information from opinion!). What you did here is just giving false information about easily verifiable events.

Please, present your case that the DEM/GOP uni-party does not exist.

I can't, maybe in the same way that I cannot prove that God does not exist...

I can understand that you don't like how GOP and Democrats sometimes get to a consensus on "hot" things, but that is more about your stance on those things than about the collusion between those parties. IMO, it is quite normal in a democracy to come to some understanding across the lines. Maybe it is how representative democracies function and should function: finding consensus!

The rest of your post is a classic strategy of deflection of attention to side-topics - i.e. drowning the main topic - that might deserve their own discussion threads, but that are also drowned in prejudice, I think.



Edited by suitkees - April 12 2024 at 09:09

The term "uniparty" is not clearly defined. Some use it in a very particular way, meaning GOP + democrats, excluding Trump. "Trump" vs. uniparty ... it's hilarious. 

Sean Trane wrote: SteveG wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ thanks for completing the troll cycle. Good boy! Just like Hugues, any truth deniers when challenged to produce facts for their arguments resort to name calling and slander. Any means possible are utilized in their efforts to protect their false narratives and opinions. And they are the sole threat to democracies. Thank you for being a wonderful example of that. You and your kind have made my case. The only troll I see is the one making allusions to Deep States and placing Zelensky inside the EC (of which you're not a part of) or in front of its flag. Just your avatar and signature indicate you're a troll.  Whether Mike is one is another issue (I doubt it), but certainly not more so than you.   But you really don't "see" it, right?? (and I'm not making fun of your vision impairment here)  My reaction to you about denial and democracy dangers was obvious in reaction to your signature  Just because you have nothing better to do in your retired or disabled life than trolling on PA doesn't mean that active workers can spend the same time answering your trollic demands.

This is too easy. Another post to add to my argument.   

Edited by SteveG - April 12 2024 at 05:39

SteveG wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I like how it totally escaped you that I already presented sufficient information to make my case. You're not the one to decide how much information I need to present, and neither of us decides what it takes for anyone viewing this conversation to be convinced. If to you me calling you a troll is slander, then I guess we're even based on what has happened in this thread and others. I asked you specifically about the Democratic party. Not about your past opinions regarding other parties or systems. Excellent deflection, btw. Another ploy to be added to my argument.

Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 12 2024 at 05:56

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I like how it totally escaped you that I already presented sufficient information to make my case. You're not the one to decide how much information I need to present, and neither of us decides what it takes for anyone viewing this conversation to be convinced. If to you me calling you a troll is slander, then I guess we're even based on what has happened in this thread and others.

I asked you specifically about the Democratic party. Not about your past opinions regarding other parties or systems. Excellent deflection, btw. Another ploy to be added to my argument.