Faithful 1 and Yates will post any irrelevant link and try to pass it off as evidence. I suppose they think by just using the url tags that somehow it puts an end to the argument.
Faithful 1's argument was that the media is liberal. This is an oft repeated myth by the right, never been proven with anything more substantial than anecdotal evidence. A bunch of right wingers watching the NBC Nightly news, hitting pause, then yelling, "Did you hear that? Right there! He said Bush never found the weapons of mass destruction. LIBERAL!". They'll post a link to some article written by one of these guys, and boom, evidence that the media is liberal. Hilarious. Never mind the fact that the media is almost entirely owned and increasingly consolidated by corporations. Not exactly a liberal bunch.
Yates posted evidence that people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama, even though there is absolutely no way to prove this.
Facts and logic are clearly not your strong point.
Here's Oak's argument for the non-existence of media bias:
1. Media bias does not exist.
2. I have not seen evidence for media bias.
3. Therefore, media bias does not exist.
The hidden assumption is that he hasn't seen media bias because he avoids reading documentation of its existence.
This is like saying
1. China does not exist.
2. I have never been to China.
3. Therefore it doesn't exist.
Beautiful textbook examples of circular reasoning.
SIDENOTE: Trump could build up the military while being anti-war by believing in "peace through strength." It's like the idea that it's better to have the weapons available and not need them rather than needing them and not having them.
