USA news & politics

[dirty harry]

It is an ad hominem, you say an argument is false because of who is making it, that's an ad hominem. Everything you say about the channel is false because you have a bias against them, simple as that.

You still haven't posted a factually incorrect statement from the channel, despite accusing them of lying. Try again.

Everything i say about the channell is false?

In that case you proving me wrong and humiliating me is easy, just provide the evidence ive asked for over and over, a positive... nah, a neutral story on Trump, or a period of videos that dont include a negative Trump story...

Easy peasy lemon squeezey no?

I only question the reliability of the content creator, based on the evidence that the content creator is unreliable.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Everything i say about the channell is false?

In that case you proving me wrong and humiliating me is easy, just provide the evidence ive asked for over and over, a positive... nah, a neutral story on Trump, or a period of videos that dont include a negative Trump story...

Easy easy lemon squeeze no?

I only question the reliability of the content creator, based on the evidence that the content creator is unreliable.

I don't need to provide evidence, you are biased against the channel therefore you cannot be trusted to say anything truthful about the channel. I can dismiss all your claims as lies because of your bias.

Maybe soon it will click in your head.

 

[dirty harry]

I don't need to provide evidence, you are biased against the channel therefore you cannot be trusted to say anything truthful about the channel. I can dismiss all your claims as lies because of your bias.

Maybe soon it will click in your head.

Well there you go. Im glad we finally got there.

You can go ahead and swallow every assertion this channell makes up, and they will financially profit from it, but let me know when they run a story that isnt anti Trump, that goes against their audience, and we will see how thay video is received....

I just dont understand how you can berate me, for not accepting the word of a person who is incentivesed to tell you a story you want to hear?

Like Alrums failed to do, tell me where your balanced content is coming from, where do you watch your neutral or pro Trump stuff?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well there you go. Im glad we finally got there.

You can go ahead and swallow every assertion this channell makes up, and they will financially profit from it, but let me know when they run a story that isnt anti Trump, that goes against their audience, and we will see how thay video is received....

I just dont understand how you can berate me, for not accepting the word of a person who is incentivesed to tell you a story you want to hear?

Like Alrums failed to do, tell me where your balanced content is coming from, where do you watch your neutral or pro Trump stuff?

Once again you miss the point entirely. Congratulations, you utterly failed logical reasoning.

But let me spell it out for you as it seems that lightbulb didn't go on in your head, I was mimicking YOUR argument. YOU were dismissing the content because you claimed it was biased and you refused to provide evidence of actual lies, instead merely asserting their bias meant they couldn't be trusted.

So well done, you've proven you are a monumental hypocrite and too thick to recognise your own argument being quoted back at you, even when it was made painfully obvious.

And I note you still didn't actually provide evidence of any lies...

 

[dirty harry]

Once again you miss the point entirely. Congratulations, you utterly failed logical reasoning.

But let me spell it out for you as it seems that lightbulb didn't go on in your head, I was mimicking YOUR argument. YOU were dismissing the content because you claimed it was biased and you refused to provide evidence of actual lies, instead merely asserting their bias meant they couldn't be trusted.

So well done, you've proven you are a monumental hypocrite and too thick to recognise your own argument being quoted back at you, even when it was made painfully obvious.

And I note you still didn't actually provide evidence of any lies...

I've asked you numerous times to prove my idiotic assertion, that this content creator is biased against Trump, and exploiting its audience for views / monetary gain, by either pointing me in the direction of 1 neutral (not even positive) video, or a period of videos that dont include Trump.

Doing so would absolutely prove how dumb I am to discard such evidence based, and unbiased this channell is, I mean, im such a moron not to trust a content creator who's financially motivated to provide only Anti Trump content, I can be humiliated with one link that proves my opinion wrong...

 

[dirty harry]

You'd be better off in qanon, they'd worship your crap there

Still waiting...

 

[Welsh Exile]

I've asked you numerous times to prove my idiotic assertion, that this content creator is biased against Trump, and exploiting its audience for views / monetary gain, by either pointing me in the direction of 1 neutral (not even positive) video, or a period of videos that dont include Trump.

Doing so would absolutely prove how dumb I am to discard such evidence based, and unbiased this channell is, I mean, im such a moron not to trust a content creator who's financially motivated to provide only Anti Trump content, I can be humiliated with one link that proves my opinion wrong...

Being biased doesn't mean it's wrong. I'm biased towards AWJ and Tipuric but that doesn't mean I'm not right when I say they're the GOATS

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I've asked you numerous times to prove my idiotic assertion, that this content creator is biased against Trump, and exploiting its audience for views / monetary gain, by either pointing me in the direction of 1 neutral (not even positive) video, or a period of videos that dont include Trump.

Doing so would absolutely prove how dumb I am to discard such evidence based, and unbiased this channell is, I mean, im such a moron not to trust a content creator who's financially motivated to provide only Anti Trump content, I can be humiliated with one link that proves my opinion wrong...

I've asked you even more to provide evidence they are lying. For the billionth time, proving bias doesn't prove what is being said is false. You can't seem to get that idiotic idea out of your head.

In court both sides are biased in favour of their own argument. In Harry's world, that means both sides can't tell the truth, therefore both sides are lying therefore in every court case everyone is committing perjury.

So I ask yet again, provide evidence the channel are not telling the truth. You still haven't done this. I have accepted they are biased against Trump but you STILL haven't proved that are lying, just like you couldn't prove a signed example in the previous video either.

Given the fact you hold a conclusion about the channel with no evidence to support it, that means you are biased and, by your own messed up reasoning, everything you say on the topic is now a lie.

Your posting is straight out of the Jordan Peterson school of faux intellectual bullshit, making assertions with no evidence, just like when you blindly asserted the republican party was dead in the water, you didn't provide evidence then either.

 

[dirty harry]

I've asked you even more to provide evidence they are lying. For the billionth time, proving bias doesn't prove what is being said is false. You can't seem to get that idiotic idea out of your head.

In court both sides are biased in favour of their own argument. In Harry's world, that means both sides can't tell the truth, therefore both sides are lying therefore in every court case everyone is committing perjury.

So I ask yet again, provide evidence the channel are not telling the truth. You still haven't done this. I have accepted they are biased against Trump but you STILL haven't proved that are lying, just like you couldn't prove a signed example in the previous video either.

Given the fact you hold a conclusion about the channel with no evidence to support it, that means you are biased and, by your own messed up reasoning, everything you say on the topic is now a lie.

Your posting is straight out of the Jordan Peterson school of faux intellectual bullshit, making assertions with no evidence, just like when you blindly asserted the republican party was dead in the water, you didn't provide evidence then either.

This whole premise of bias is unfair prejudice. If you agree this channell unfairly prejudices against Trump, your literally agreeing that you watch it because it makes you feel fuzzy inside, thats standard is ok for you, but dont expect me to read or watch sources with unfair prejudice, I need more than thay, I need a fleshed out story, with context and different sides considered.

No lawyers are not 'biased' toward their argument, they are paid to make a case on behalf of their client, and thats a brilliant point you bring up, because this is the same. In the OJ case, would you listen to Johnny Cochran alone, for every day of the trial, and at the end come to a fair conclusion on OJ simpsons actions?

No, that would be stupid wouldn't it?

 

[General Melchett]

I need a fleshed out story, with context and different sides considered.

Didn't you stop watching videos after 8 seconds because they started with something you didn't want to hear? I don't know how you can say you want to hear both sides if you don't hear people out.

 

[Which Tyler]

Are you guys still wondering why a self-confessed contrarian, who has explicitly said that he's just here to have fights on the internet because he's bored is... being contrarian and picking fights on the internet?

This isn't horses vs zebras, this is "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has an ornithologist explicitly telling you that it's a duck"

 

[Welsh Exile]

This whole premise of bias is unfair prejudice. If you agree this channell unfairly prejudices against Trump, your literally agreeing that you watch it because it makes you feel fuzzy inside, thats standard is ok for you, but dont expect me to read or watch sources with unfair prejudice, I need more than thay, I need a fleshed out story, with context and different sides considered.

No lawyers are not 'biased' toward their argument, they are paid to make a case on behalf of their client, and thats a brilliant point you bring up, because this is the same. In the OJ case, would you listen to Johnny Cochran alone, for every day of the trial, and at the end come to a fair conclusion on OJ simpsons actions?

No, that would be stupid wouldn't it?

Every single person and news outlet has some kind of bias, you know that. If that is your standard then there is not a single thing you can trust.

 

[dirty harry]

Every single person and news outlet has some kind of bias, you know that. If that is your standard then there is not a single thing you can trust.

100% accurate, but not all are incentivised specifically to bash a single person. This and channells like the Meidas touch were created right after Trump got into office, to monetise anti Trump sentiment.

They utilise algorithmic strategy, in a predatory way to pander to an audience who already have the answer in their heads, and they know Trump equals money.

Look at the Mr Beast style thumbnails, the style of delivery, the tone of language... its dangerous. It contributes to dividing the parties and reinforces conclusions instead of assessing situations with honesty. At least the Meidas touch doesnt hide their premise, they stand out and proud about going after Trump, this guy hides it with his premise being neutral legitimacy, and it makes not so smart people feel smart, without knowing they are being pandered. Remember it is easier to fool a fool, than convince him he has been fooled.

If your tag line is 'giving you an inside view of the legal system' and then creating 99% anti Trump content, I am allowed to determine they arent doing what they pretend to do.

There are left wing sources who bash Trump, and theyre watchable, theyre right sometimes and wrong sometimes, but if Alrums and Ragey are honest here, they only immerse themselves in this type of media, and never consider context or an opposing side of the events that may have validity.

Again, the video about ICE abducting a young girl, who sat crying in a sherrifs car was posted here and people believed it, people actually watched a video of men with Sherriff written on their back, consoling a little girl crying in the back of a cruiser, surrounded by a crowd saying for blood, and agreed with the byline that it was an ICE abduction. It took 30 seconds to find out it was a girl removed in a drugs bust, and had nothing to do with ICE.

Was there 1 bit of recognition on here about that being a fake video? Was there buggery.

Thats what I'm talking about, these people have been turned into mob mentality online, noone will acknowledge falsehoods posted, and a lot of them cant read my opposing view without immediately getting upset and throwing insults.

Its a wild time man...

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

More lies, I told you legal eagle existed before Trump took office and originally didn't do political stuff. I already told you this but you still repeat this lie.

Also legal eagle dont hide being anti trump, they are very very open about it so again, you are lying.

The major bias here is yours, you are claiming things to be true about the channel that aren't.

 

[dirty harry]

More lies, I told you legal eagle existed before Trump took office and originally do political stuff. I already told you this but you still repeat this lie.

Also legal eagle dont hide being anti trump, they are very very open about it so again, you are lying.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

View attachment 24299

Ok 1 year into him being in office. If you want, look at their earliest videos, there were looking at movies etc, not politics. Again I was already watching the channel before they shifted.

Seeing as you are already in YouTube, go onto their videos and sort by oldest. Now want to claim it was a nothing but anti trump channel?

 

[dirty harry]

Ok 1 year into him being in office. If you want, look at their earliest videos, there were looking at movies etc, not politics. Again I was already watching the channel before they shifted.

'This and channells like the Meidas touch were created right after Trump got into office'

'More lies, I told you legal eagle existed before Trump took office'

This is a great example of what i mean, you just called me a liar, a stranger on the Internet for making the claim that the legal eagle channell was created after Trump got into office, when presented with evidence of that being absolutely accurate claim, you dont address that you made a mistake, and pivot to something else.

Your not going to convince me to watch this channell, when you won't be honest about basic fact of when the channell was created. My eyes arent lying to me are they? Im not seeing Feb 2017 when it is saying Feb 2012?!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

'This and channells like the Meidas touch were created right after Trump got into office'

'More lies, I told you legal eagle existed before Trump took office'

This is a great example of what i mean, you just called me a liar, a stranger on the Internet for making the claim that the legal eagle channell was created after Trump got into office, when presented with evidence of that being absolutely accurate claim, you dont address that you made a mistake, and pivot to something else.

Your not going to convince me to watch this channell, when you won't be honest about basic fact of when the channell was created. My eyes arent lying to me are they? Im not seeing Feb 2017 when it is saying Feb 2012?!

I did address it, you however are refusing to address the early videos were not just anti trump as you claim. Seeing as you are already on YouTube, why not post a screenshot of the first few pages of their oldest videos and see how many have anything to do with Trump, go on.

Their first political video doesn't appear until they are 47 videos in and then after that they are maybe 1 in 5 political until the first impeachment. That's 2 years of not focusing on Trump. Quite a long time for a channel supposedly founded to attack Trump isn't it?

 

[dirty harry]

I did address it, you however are refusing to address the early videos were not just anti trump as you claim. Seeing as you are already on YouTube, why not post a screenshot of the first few pages of their oldest videos and see how many have anything to do with Trump, go on.

I find it fascinating that his earlier videos, are quick short law school kids, I mean cant create a channell to **** Trump and scream this channel is designed to **** Trump can you. Especially if you want to look legitimate, Meidas touch already beat him to that niche.

I also find it interesting, that he made some super popular Real lawyer videos, had millions of views but pivoted to **** Trump for 10% of the views...

My interest is peaked, im going to go research Stone...

 

[ncurd]

I did address it, you however are refusing to address the early videos were not just anti trump as you claim. Seeing as you are already on YouTube, why not post a screenshot of the first few pages of their oldest videos and see how many have anything to do with Trump, go on.

Just cause I'm interested I'm trying to find his first "law explaining" it was 5th October 2018 nearly 18 months after he started the channel.

You can argue if the cases he picks are selected with an anti right wing bent. I think its all way way too cited that unless you're a lawyer yourself in USA it would hard to argue he isn't getting it right.