A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents. The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings the girl to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, “Sir, this was the most gallant and bravest thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.”
The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.”
The reporter says, “Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living, and what political affiliation do you have?”
The biker replies "I'm a U.S. Marine, a Republican and I’m voting for Trump."
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
“U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT & STEALS HIS LUNCH”
And THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it pretty much does, too.
69 comments:
So, to try to support your continued false attacks on the heroes of the Free American Press, you created a fake story, written as a joke, and pretend it represents reality.
The epitome of the dumbing down of the attacks on the defenders of liberty as represented by Trump "conservatives..."
First of all, you committed liar, I didn't create this story. I stole it from Facebook. You can tell because of the title of the post which is "Stolen From A Facebook Post".
But while it is an exaggeration...which is a common technique to make a point...it does most certainly represent reality. I've provided all manner of evidence that supports the reality that the leftist media is not to be trusted, that they lie with impunity and as a result are the enemy of the people they claim to care about informing. You being a liar simply like to defend their lies, explain them away as mere errors and basically just whine without actually proving your response to the claim.
The leftist media outlets and reporters you defend are not defenders of liberty, anymore than you're a Christian with a love for truth. They are mouthpieces for those who continue to infringe upon our liberties. They stifle opposing opinion, as you do at your blog, and stifling free speech is not defending liberty. They pervert the truth, as you do everywhere, which endangers liberty.
The fact is that I could turn my blog into a daily posting of the latest media lie and rarely have a day where there is none to report. In doing so, you'd be without the possibility of proving what I'd post is true or accurate or purposely slanted for the purpose of influencing rather than informing.
I just might do that.
I'm going to call your bluff and when you can't support your claim, you will be embarrassed and retract your claim, if you were a decent person.
Go for it.
Do a post every day about a false claim in the media. See if you can find even ONE intentionally false claim out of the thousands of stories and tens of thousands of claims that are written everyday in the media... even one a day. That would improve your credibility at least a fraction.
That would be a start to making your case.
On the other hand trauma If you can't even find one intentionally false story in the media everyday - again one out of let's say a thousand - then you will be forced to face the fact that you have been living a lie and passing on false witness's in your unrelenting attack on some of the world's true heroes.
You won't, because you can't. The only question is, would you admit it?
See? You're lying already. I did not say anything about proving intent. I would merely present falsehood after falsehood. I would pick those that are so incredibly obvious that intent to deceive was present, but that would be up to the reader to decide whether not it was intent or ineptness. It doesn't matter. The media weasels you defend are liars, just like you.
But here...I'll start with this one from today:
https://www.aol.com/news/jimmy-carter-says-hes-sad-184240501-202944127.html
"Georgia is among the dozens of states where Republican lawmakers are pushing hundreds of bills that would make it harder to cast ballots than it was in 2020. Many states expanded voting options in 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic, but many of the GOP-backed measures go beyond those changes to curtail longstanding voting practices."
This is not an accurate report of the intention behind Georgia's proposals. It is akin to suggesting walking down to the end of the block to cast a vote is making it harder to cast a ballot. More to the point, this article does nothing to present Georgia's side of the story. Honest people understand they're looking to tighten up voting rules in order to guarantee election integrity to the best of their ability to do so. Carter can pretend all he likes that advances have been made to strengthen the integrity of mail-in voting, but that's not the same as saying they're as secure as voting in person, proving you're who you say you are and live where you say you live and other common sense (REAL common sense...not the lefty notion of common sense) proposals.
There was never a problem with casting a ballot. There were problems some had with following the simple rules of doing so. This article lies by the implication that Georgia is doing something harmful, simply because Jimmy Peanut says there is. By choosing not to report on the Georgia's intentions, they project a false understanding of reality. Tell me that's not intentional, and then look in the mirror and mock the liar looking back at you.
The story says that new Georgia laws would make it harder to vote. THAT is factual, or at least a reasonable assessment of the situation. Regardless, it is clearly NOT a false claim. It's just not.
Same for the rest of it. These are not false stories or false claims. You're just factually mistaken.
I think this is the problem: You are so caught up in and blinded by your partisan feelings and emotions that you read actual news and think it is an attack or false.
You can't demonstrate that this is a false story. You have your OPINIONS about why YOU THINK it is less than accurate, but that is not the same thing as demonstrating you are factually correct (you're not).
Perhaps another problem with your irrational thinking is that you believe that a news groups HAS to present "all sides" of a story to be objective. They don't. IF one "side" is saying, for instance, that the Klan is holding a rally to discourage black people from moving to their town and that is what is happening, the news is not obliged to give the KKK "side" of the story. Not all "sides" are equal or rational or factual.
Regardless, this is not a false news story and it helps explain things. You're seeing things that literally are not there. You're reading a story that YOU DON'T CARE FOR and reading into that, "so, it must be false..." without doing the work to demonstrate it's false (which you can't, because the story is factual.)
One could make the case that the story is more biased than one would like it to be. "I'd REALLLY like for them to cover more of the GOP angle..." but if the facts are correct (and they appear to be, since they are sourced and supported), the news group is not obliged to tilt more towards GOP views in a way that you would like to see.
This explains a lot.
But just to give you a chance: WHAT SPECIFICALLY is "false" in the story? Will these bills NOT make it harder (they will)? DID many states expand voting options in 2020 (they did)? Don't many of the GOP bills go beyond those changes (they do).
There simply isn't a false claim in that quote, or in the story that I can see.
Marshal... "I did not say anything about proving intent."
So, you're saying that if UNINTENTIONALLY a media source makes mistakes and posts what you think are false claims (which we can see from your delusional "example" that this is not happening in the first place), then people who make MISTAKES are "an enemy of the people..."?
What a graceless hellscape you envision in this world, if so. By YOUR graceless measure, we're ALL "enemies of the people" which makes the term meaningless.
You're just so very far detached from reality and reason on this point...
And then you call them "liars" which DOES include intent. You're just all over the place with this insipid claim and not in any places that include reason or facts or, you know, reality and shit.
"So, you're saying that if UNINTENTIONALLY a media source makes mistakes and posts what you think are false claims (which we can see from your delusional "example" that this is not happening in the first place), then people who make MISTAKES are "an enemy of the people..."?"
This is a great example of my point. You respond to a statement I made in a manner that intentionally corrupts the clear meaning. My position refers to false claims, false representations of the facts, then you demand I must prove intent to deceive. Yet, you ignore that if there was a true and sincere attempt to provide accuracy in reporting, there wouldn't be so many stories which fall so woefully short in that regard. The story I posted about Carter is a great example. It presents Carter's opinions, but does nothing to address whether or not what he says is a true and accurate representation of the facts. This is the opposite of what your media sources do with regard to Trump. They have no problem using terms like "false claims of election fraud" when there was no example of a claim having been proven false, yet will simply say, as if true, that Georgia is seeking to make voting more difficult. There is no attempt to validate the falseness of the center-right position, and an equal disregard for validating the truth of the center-right position. THAT is either done with intent, or it is an example of journalistic incompetence. The result either way is false reporting and a distorting of the facts.
More later.
Marshal... "ou respond to a statement I made in a manner that intentionally corrupts the clear meaning."
You will note my question mark. I was asking a question, clearly. I'm saying, It SOUNDS like this is what you're saying... is it?
Thus, there was no attempt to "intentionally corrupt the meaning" and your claim itself is an example of a stupidly false claim that has become the norm for modern conservatives.
You say your "position" is that there are false claims and false representations of facts... and IS THERE INTENT there, you think? Or do you think they're making mistakes?
If it is the former, then prove the intent. If it is the latter, then are you saying making mistakes makes one an enemy of the people?
Marshal... "Yet, you ignore that if there was a true and sincere attempt to provide accuracy in reporting, there wouldn't be so many stories which fall so woefully short in that regard."
Actually, as you can see from your own false claims (and giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you never mean to make false claims in your statements to me), you REGULARLY make false claims, You just made one that I pointed out. It's quite easy to make mistakes, even with "true and sincere attempts to be accurate."
As to the "so many stories which fall short..." well, that remains to be seen.
You've not demonstrated that there are "so many stories that fall short/have facts wrong."
Nor have you demonstrated any intent to report false claims.
Nor have you demonstrated that the instances that you imagine are not mere differences of opinion, NOT "false claims."
This comment is in reference to your goofy comment from March 10, 2021 at 8:38 AM. I'll begin with your closing questions:
"But just to give you a chance: WHAT SPECIFICALLY is "false" in the story? Will these bills NOT make it harder (they will)?"
What's false is the suggestion...the implication...that the GOP is looking to make it harder to vote. That's not at all the purpose of their proposals. Thus, the passage of the proposals resulting in "difficulty" in voting is a fallacious objection...to say nothing of blatantly absurd. I again refer to my analogy: insisting one must walk to the polling place at the end of the block rather than to mail in a ballot makes things "harder" is technically true, but not something about which there can be a legitimate objection...as if the purpose was to make it "harder".
Said another way, sure, suggesting that everyone go to the polls makes it "harder" than staying home and mailing in a ballot. But voter integrity is weakened by mail-in voting...as Carter himself stated emphatically when pretending he cared about integrity in other countries. In person voting is more secure and thus worth the effort to travel to the precinct polling place.
So while it may be factually correct and true that walking down the street to the polling place is "harder", to pretend making it harder is the reason going to the polling place to vote is preferred is a lie and no media source is honest by allowing that claim to go unchallenged.
"Perhaps another problem with your irrational thinking is that you believe that a news groups HAS to present "all sides" of a story to be objective. They don't."
Bullshit. Carter's claim is a lie. The intention is to improve and protect election integrity...NOT to "make it harder" or "turn back the clock on voter access". That's a freaking lie and it should not go without giving the other side of the story. By allowing it to stand without the other side provided, the news source is complicit in the lie...regardless of whether or not the intention was to lie. The source is furthering the lie...intentionally choosing to allow the reader to believe what isn't true about the intentions of the the GOP and their proposals.
Even your stupid Klan analogy illustrates the point. If the rally was billed as "a rally to discourage black people from moving to their town", there would be no need for the Klan to provide their side since the rally being billed as such has already provided the Klan's position! But if the rally wasn't billed as such, and simply reported as if that was their purpose, absolutely their side of the story MUST be sought out and provided. OR, the source could say they sought the Klan side of the story and the Klan had not responded to the request. THAT is how a legitimate and objective news source is supposed to deal with whatever story they choose to cover.
In the meantime, the same story says this (highlights mine):
"Carter, 96, alluded to false assertions by former President Donald Trump, saying the proposed restrictions “are reactions to allegations of fraud for which no evidence was produced —allegations that were, in fact, refuted through various audits, recounts, and other measures.”"
Where does Bill Barrow of the AP get off editorializing in this way? How can you say the piece is objective and not false with such clear malfeasance? It's one thing to report that Carter believes Trump's claims are false and without evidence (a lie itself), and just let it sit there, but for the reporter to refer to Trump's claims as "false assertions" is an unproven statement...an as such a lie.
So what we see here is Barrow reporting everything Carter says as if gospel, while reporting what Trump's said as "false". More specifically, Barrow doesn't even make an attempt to judge Carter's comments at all, while feeling free and justified with judging the claims of Trump! And you somehow believe that won't have any affect on the perceptions of the average reader? You have a strange concept of what objective journalism looks like if that's true!
So the "facts" are only correct insofar as regards what Carter said. But the story is false in that it allows his goofy comments to stand as if they are accurate reflections of the GOP proposals and their intentions. You know damned well that this same "journalist" would NOT report that Trump said the election was rigged against him without some form of rebuke. We know this because he referred to Trump's position as "false assertions". Carter's assertions about the GOP proposals are true, but Trump's assertions are false. Neither is proven, yet you pretend this article is not an example of false reporting. You're a hack.
"So, you're saying that if UNINTENTIONALLY a media source makes mistakes and posts what you think are false claims (which we can see from your delusional "example" that this is not happening in the first place), then people who make MISTAKES are "an enemy of the people..."?"
You've used this lame response before and it is no less lame for doing so now. I insist the intent is obvious in that these "mistakes" by the leftist media are so prevalent when dealing with the political and the ideological. They're routine and plentiful. It's apparent in how they respond to comments made by leftists in interviews versus how they respond to those made by conservatives or Republicans. Watch how Anderson Cooper doesn't do a thing to question the absurdities rampant in the blathering of Stacey Abrams:
https://www.blazetv.com/watch/channel/series/series/bZ55M0eK8zTh-levintv-latest-episodes/episode/6-buzdzbj0uzxp-the-abrams-agenda-ep-795
You just don't see that kinda crap out of conservatives in media. The media has a responsibility to report the facts honestly and without bias...without spin...without capitulation to the bullshit a leftist politician is sure to spew. They're not to run interference for any of them regardless of their own personal biases and regardless of the party affiliation of the person being interviewed or investigated (not that leftists actually do any investigation anymore).
"You say your "position" is that there are false claims and false representations of facts... and IS THERE INTENT there, you think? Or do you think they're making mistakes?
If it is the former, then prove the intent. If it is the latter, then are you saying making mistakes makes one an enemy of the people?"
First of all, most of the lies I see the leftist media tell and defend are exposed by conservatives providing the truth...the missing details that provide the consumer with a more accurate picture. Here's a great example: While I can't account for the race-hustlers, I fairly confident that had the entire body cam footage of the George Floyd situation been presented rather than the 9 minutes splashed all over the TV, we might not have had such destructive "peaceful protests". No media source should've run that 9 minute clip without first getting all the details. My first impression upon watching it was to wonder what led to that cop kneeling on the dude's neck. (Of course I was already well aware of that restraint technique's effectiveness and safety) The vast majority of people simply gasped as if they had all they needed to know and the result was millions of dollars of damage, cops and citizens injured and killed. Enemy of the people.
As to false claims, why are there so many, particularly by the leftist media? You want intent proven? How about lack of intent to insure accuracy in reporting? Can you prove they aren't lacking in that regard, especially when so much reported by them is suspect if not outright crap?
You're a hack, Dan. As such you're a worse liar than they are. To defend their incompetence and laziness is to aid and abet these enemies of the people.
Marshal, I think the problem is your reading comprehension. You are reading into the story things that aren't there.
You said, "What's false is the suggestion...the implication...that the GOP is looking to make it harder to vote. That's not at all the purpose of their proposals."
I can find no "suggestion" that the GOP is looking to make it harder to vote. I can find where Carter suggested that the GOP was turning back the clock when it comes to limiting voter turnout, and Carter's words at least has a hint of implying intent on the part of the GOP. But the reporter is only reporting Carter's opinion. The reporter is not saying that this IS the intent of the GOP...
"“As our state legislators seek to turn back the clock through legislation that will restrict access to voting for many Georgians, I am disheartened, saddened, and angry,”"
So, what you will need to do to support your claim is cite the WORDS from the news story that does this. If you can. (You can't, but go ahead and give it a try or admit that you can't).
Marshal... "the passage of the proposals resulting in "difficulty" in voting is a fallacious objection."
As a matter of fact, by adding additional hurdles to overcome, it WILL LITERALLY make voting more difficult, whether or not that is the GOP intent.
But answer this question, Marshal: KNOWING that so many Georgian GOP types are fans of Trump and KNOWING that Trump is advocating limiting voting and KNOWING that states like Georgia are at real risk of losing a GOP advantage... do you REALLY think that the GOP does not want to see fewer people showing up to vote for Democrats?
Really?
And if you answer that, then answer this: Are you naive?
Are you listening to what the Trump types are saying? They're living in abject fear that if Democrats continue to make inroads into Georgia, into Texas, into Tennessee... the game will be over for the GOP. Hell, you all are only competitive today due to voting restrictions and gerrymandering. The angry old white conservative male voting bloc is dying off and younger, darker, more liberal majorities are showing up everywhere.
Of course, the GOP wants to see fewer younger, darker, more liberal, more LGBTQ friendly people vote. That's the only way you all can hold on to power. Do you not realize that?
One final question: As it becomes clear that the GOP voting bloc has literally dwindled down to a significant minority, do you STILL think you SHOULD hold on to power and have more input than the majority of the nation? Are you a fan of apartheid?
From March 12, 2021 at 9:28 PM
"I can find no "suggestion" that the GOP is looking to make it harder to vote."
Of course you can't...because it's not the point of the GOP proposals at all.
"I can find where Carter suggested that the GOP was turning back the clock when it comes to limiting voter turnout, and Carter's words at least has a hint of implying intent on the part of the GOP."
A "hint"? Jeez.
"But the reporter is only reporting Carter's opinion."
And with no editorializing as he did in referring to Trump's "false assertions". That sort of blatant bias stands out to honest people.
"The reporter is not saying that this IS the intent of the GOP..."
No. He's letting Carter's words stand without any rebuke, so he doesn't have to. Again, he allows Carter's words without adding anything, while having no problem adding "false" to Trump's assertions. Worse, the freakin' article is about Carter's comments and it's Trump's comments Barrow has no issue judging. Does that make sense to you? Are you going to suggest that it doesn't imply Carter's words are accurate while making sure everyone believes Trump's are false?
"So, what you will need to do to support your claim is cite the WORDS from the news story that does this."
Does what?
"As a matter of fact, by adding additional hurdles to overcome, it WILL LITERALLY make voting more difficult, whether or not that is the GOP intent."
Again, you moron, following the rules is factually a "hurdle", but it is not making voting more difficult. It's simply rolling back those policies that made voting less secure. If it's too big a hurdle to do things in a manner that ensures election integrity, too damned bad. Honest people care about having honest elections. What asshats like Carter refer to as "better access" makes fraud more possible. Voting was not "difficult" before the leftist policies that resulted in elections honest people can't trust. This is the kind of crap your party is trying to codify, as if it has the Constitutional authority. Georgia wishes to improve the trust people have in their elections. Their proposals will do that. Carter wants Dem control.
"But answer this question, Marshal: KNOWING that so many Georgian GOP types are fans of Trump and KNOWING that Trump is advocating limiting voting and KNOWING that states like Georgia are at real risk of losing a GOP advantage... do you REALLY think that the GOP does not want to see fewer people showing up to vote for Democrats?"
This is where you prove you know nothing about conservatism...even the soft conservatism of the GOP. Trump isn't advocating for limiting voting, except to those not eligible. By that I do not mean he's trying to redefine eligibility...that's what YOUR kind does. I doubt Georgia's at a risk of losing a GOP advantage if elections are honest. The only people the GOP wants to see prevented from voting Dem are those who are not eligible to vote. The GOP isn't the Democrat party. It doesn't seek to win by any means necessary. Honest people can stand losing honestly. Dems aren't honest enough to risk losing at all.
So if you think the GOP is as crooked as you and your party, prove it or recant the suggestion.
more later
You're having difficulty assessing reality correctly. Carter said that the GOP in Georgia was seeking to turn back the clock by restricting or limiting voter registration and voter turnout. That is spin on the reality. It's a way of stating his view of that reality. It is not a false claim... one could say it is spin, but is not a false claim. The changes will literally make it more difficult for voters to turn out and turn back the clock to the time when not as many voters would turn out, and this concern was especially for African American and poor voters.
But there's nothing false in Carter's statement. Understand that. There's nothing false in it. Offering a spin on something is not necessarily making it false.
Trump on the other hand has said, for instance, that the election was being stolen and he won the election in a landslide. There's not any sense in the world that that is factual. It is a stupidly stupidly false claim. That's not a spin on reality. It is a false claim.
When reporters have a president making a false claim, yes they will point out that it is a false claim. That's what they should do. When a reporter has a leader like Carter offering spin on the claim, they can point out that it is Carter's way of spinning things, but it's not a false story by reporting what Carter has said. And what Carter said was not a false claim.
Do you not understand the world shattering difference between the stupidly and dangerously false claims that Trump made vs the Spin that Carter placed on the awful actions of Georgia's GOP? If not, then that's your problem.
Once again, you are not pointing to a false claim in a new story. You don't like the way the reporting it in an argument could be made but they could have been more even-handed towards the GOP side of things. But it's not a false story, just because you don't like it. Again. You. Can. Not. Point. To. A. False. Claim. In. That. Story.
Now, about the Georgia vote.
1. The Georgia GOP lost to critical Senate votes last year. This, in an ultra-conservative state.
2. According to the experts in Georgia, there is no sign, no evidence, no hint of any serious amount of voter fraud in that election. The Democrats won because they turned out more people to the polls. Again, as a point of fact in the real world, the Democrats won two Senate seats in Georgia cuz they had more turn out oh, and not because of fraud. That is the reality of the world we live in. Do you understand that reality? Don't hem and haw... don't make up s***, just tell me, do you understand the reality that the Democrats won in Georgia because they increased the voting turnout and had better turnout than the GOP and not because of fraud?
3. Do you doubt for even one second that Georgia's GOP does not want to lose other elections? And want to see fewer Democrats to turn out to vote than Republicans?
4. Do you doubt for one second that the reason they're trying to pass these laws is to decrease the number of Democrats who turn out to vote?
If you do, then you're just blindly partisanly naive. Of course that's why all of these GOP legislators and all these conservative states are passing these laws. Precisely to decrease Democrat turn out for their elections. Don't be stupid enough or naive enough to believe otherwise. That is the reason. They lost this big election, these big elections - elections where all the experts say there was no serious fraud and that elections were won fair and square by democrats - and these GOP legislators do not want to see that happen again and as a result, they've been quite clear, they immediately needed to change things so they do not lose elections again.
Anyone who says otherwise is just a God damned liar.
Marshal... "It's simply rolling back those policies that made voting less secure."
THERE IS NO DATA THAT SHOWS THE ELECTIONS WERE NOT SECURE. These were legal, free elections with large turnouts and the GOP hates that because more people voting hurts them, but it is NOT INSECURE.
Read it again and understand: THESE ELECTIONS IN 2020 WERE NOT INSECURE.
Black candidates won in Georgia because MORE people voted for them than the white candidates. Period. There is NO DATA that says otherwise.
Do you understand that reality?
Do you recognize and acknowledge that there are NO election experts who are saying that this election was marred by widespread voting irregularities?
"IT'S OFFICIAL: THE ELECTION WAS SECURE!"
"Election officials and election security experts have long been clear: voter fraud is extraordinarily rare and our system has strong checks in place to protect the integrity of our voting process.
These are the facts."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
"“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
"TRUMP'S OWN OFFICIALS say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs
The experts have spoken. Now, sure, there are some Qanon nuts out there still insisting that Trump won and will be reinstated as president soon, BUT THOSE PEOPLE ARE INSANE conspiracy theorists.
NO EXPERTS are saying the election was stolen. The black folks won in Georgia because they got more people to vote for them. So just stop with the pretension that you all will "win" if you just install more limits on free elections. We see the racism and apartheid-ism.
Your ever shrinking minority will NOT rule the majority.
Hell no.
Continuing my response to your comment from March 12, 2021 at 9:28 PM:
"Are you listening to what the Trump types are saying?"
Yes. They're saying what all honest people are saying: Election integrity is low and cheating is easier than ever for Democrats. If even a significant percentage of Dems think the 2020 election was rigged, then there needs to be work to improve election integrity. The Georgia proposals will do that for Georgians.
"Hell, you all are only competitive today due to voting restrictions and gerrymandering."
Hell, Biden only won because battleground states ignored state election laws that allowed ineligible ballots to be counted. More to the point, Dems are only competitive because they lie and cheat due to weakened voter laws that make lying and cheating easier. And don't pretend gerrymandering is a GOP thing alone. Both partied redistrict when they become the party in power. I would argue the GOP reverses the gerrymandering the Dems perpetrated when they were in power. Prove me wrong.
"The angry old white conservative male voting bloc is dying off and younger, darker, more liberal majorities are showing up everywhere."
So you'd like to believe. The increased numbers of minorities voting for Trump and other center-right politicians belies that claim. And I like how you lefties perpetrate all manner of election corruption and then mock conservatives who are now justified in their righteous anger. You're such a freakin' racist!
"Of course, the GOP wants to see fewer younger, darker, more liberal, more LGBTQ friendly people vote."
Prove it. The GOP wants to see fair elections with eligible voters only being counted. This benefits both parties, even though Dems count on fraud when their policy proposals fails to garner widespread support of good people.
younger, darker, more liberal
"As it becomes clear that the GOP voting bloc has literally dwindled down to a significant minority, do you STILL think you SHOULD hold on to power and have more input than the majority of the nation?"
You do love your fantasies, don't you? So long as the Democrat/socialist party is as perverse and corrupt as it is, there's no way Dems should EVER hold power again. But given how few losses there were down ballot, it's pretty goofy to suggest conservatives are a "dwindling minority".
"Are you a fan of apartheid?"
Given your glee at the prospect of "angry old white conservative male voting bloc is dying off", it's clear you are! Given your penchant for cancelling at your blog, it's clear oppressing opposing thoughts and perspectives suggests you're down with the notion of separation and segregation.
More later...
Unless you answer questions directly, I'm done here.
1.Do you SERIOUSLY think that these GOP types don't want to discourage/decrease Democrat voters?
2. Do you SERIOUSLY think that these GOP types aren't doing this precisely to increase their chances of winning in these GOP states, hoping to decrease Democrat turnout?
3. Do you acknowledge that these two Democrat senators in Georgia won legitimately and that there was NO election fraud sufficient to take the vote from the Republicans? In fact, that there is NO data to suggest that their was any effort by Democrats to interfere with the election in greater numbers than their were by Republicans?
4. Do you acknowledge that all the election experts are saying that these elections were won legitimately in the most secure election ever?
5. Do you acknowledge that Trump was a God damned liar when he said he won and that the election was stolen? That there was NO basis in reality for him to make that claim? that it wasn't a "matter of opinion" he was stating... that it was a stupidly false claim? That, in fact, he lost the election soundly?
Answer or I'm done here.
Don't answer and we can all see that you are done. That you've sold your soul for a damnable series of lies and corruption.
Also:
IF it is true that those who believe in modern Trump style conservatism are truly down to 30-40% of the nation (and it is - which is sad, because it should not be anywhere near that number! What an indictment on the US), would you want that minority to rule if they could rig the rules to make it possible to win the elections?
Would you want minority rule of the nation?
Marshal... " it's pretty goofy to suggest conservatives are a "dwindling minority".
I know it scares you and probably makes you feel sad to think about it, but look at the data...
"One trap is its steady movement to the right, which has distanced the party from the moderate voters who hold the balance of power in a two-party system.
A second trap is demographic change. Younger adults and minorities vote heavily Democratic, and their numbers increase with each passing election. The older white voters that are the GOP’s base of support are shrinking in number. Within two decades, based on demographic change alone, the GOP faces the prospect of being a second-rate party.
Right-wing media are the Republicans’ third trap. A powerful force within the party, they have tied the GOP to policy positions and versions of reality that are blunting its ability to govern and impeding its efforts to attract new sources of support.
A fourth trap is the large tax cuts that the GOP has three times handed to the wealthy and that has created a split between its working-class supporters and marketplace conservatives.
The fifth trap is the GOP’s disregard for democratic norms and institutions, including its effort through voter ID laws to suppress the vote of minorities and lower-income Americans."
https://scholar.harvard.edu/thomaspatterson/republican-party
"In the weeks since the January riot at the Capitol, there has been a raft of stories about voters across the country leaving the Republican Party. Some of the numbers are eye-catching and suggest that the GOP may be shrinking before our eyes, but a closer look at the numbers over time shows that a larger change has been working its way through the party for some time.
In fact, when one takes into account shifts in the composition of the Democratic Party, the real story seems to be more about a deeper remaking of the nation’s two major political parties.
To be sure, the headlines from the last few weeks have been striking, with multiple states reporting large declines in Republican voter registrations."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-registration-drop-after-capitol-attack-part-larger-trend-n1256966
Continuing...
You know that Texas is potentially turning blue in the coming decade, I guess? If Texas turns blue (and all else stayed the same), the White House (and possibly Congress) would be out of reach for the GOP until such time as either the GOP made amends to all the people they're shunning/turning off right now (young folk, LGBTQ folk and their allies, educated folks, black folk, minorities, women, etc).
“I think people have been waiting for a long time for Texas to turn from red to blue. It could certainly happen. And if it does happen, then Democrats will have three additional seats in Congress, and three additional votes in the Electoral College,”
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/how-population-growth-will-impact-republicans-in-the-2024-election-172111681.html
"However, a good part of recent population growth in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina should continue to be from the Democratic-leaning voting blocs of Latinos or Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans"
https://www.brookings.edu/research/population-change-and-the-projected-change-in-congressional-representation/
Yes, conservatives have made small improvements with the black and Latino community, but they're still overwhelmingly voting Democrat and there's no indication that the trend will continue upwards... Indeed, their attacks on the election rules is only going to turn away black voters. People can SEE what's happening. Georgia elected two black Senators and the GOP has gone nuts. Even if YOU don't intend that, it's how it's going to be seen because it is the effect that the GOP is shooting for - limiting turnout from Democratic voters.
Response to your March 13, 2021 at 11:58 AM comment:
"Carter said that the GOP in Georgia was seeking to turn back the clock by restricting or limiting voter registration and voter turnout."
Which is a lie. They're seeking to return to better election integrity. No one was restricted except by their own stupidity, laziness or intention to cast a fraudulent vote. An honest reporter who believes in accuracy would have cited the actual election laws, how they were changed and then how the GOP is attempting to fix the problems those changes caused.
"That is spin on the reality. It's a way of stating his view of that reality. It is not a false claim... one could say it is spin, but is not a false claim."
I can understand how a liar like you would have no problem with "spin".
"But there's nothing false in Carter's statement."
What's false is the lie he's projecting upon the Georgia GOP with regard to their intentions behind the proposals. It's to improve election integrity, not to restrict eligible voters of either party, which is Carter's...and YOUR preferred lie...uh..."spin".
"Trump on the other hand has said, for instance, that the election was being stolen and he won the election in a landslide."
This is Trump's opinion...his belief...which is based upon a great body of evidence, as well as simply logic based upon what all honest people easily saw. Not being honest, it's no wonder you missed it.
"When reporters have a president making a false claim, yes they will point out that it is a false claim. That's what they should do. When a reporter has a leader like Carter offering spin on the claim, they can point out that it is Carter's way of spinning things, but it's not a false story by reporting what Carter has said."
That's some fancy tap-dancing. But you're not dealing with a lefty here. You're dealing with someone for whom facts and truth actually matter...even when facts and truth go against me...which is not the case here. Just because you want to assert Trump is speaking falsely, while having no evidence to back it up, that doesn't mean he's actually speaking falsely, and no respectable journalist would act as you're trying to twist reality to make it appear. But then, you're a liar, so...
"Do you not understand the world shattering difference between the stupidly and dangerously false claims that Trump made vs the Spin that Carter placed on the awful actions of Georgia's GOP?"
There's no difference. You're lying about both, or you're equally ignorant of the truth of either. I'm going with "inveterate liar".
"Once again, you are not pointing to a false claim in a new story."
Uh...totally did.
Fact: Trump lost the election.
That is a fact. There's no doubt about the fact. The votes were counted and Trump had fewer votes. He lost the popular vote and he lost the electoral vote. He lost, that is a fact. The fact is verified by the various experts who counted the vote and by election observers - including Trump's own people - who verified that the election results were solid.
Trump lost. That's a fact.
Fact: When Trump claimed he won in a landslide, that is not an opinion, it's a false claim. A stupidly false claim because 1. He didn't win and 2. He certainly didn't win in a landslide and 3. He had NO BASIS on which to make the claim.
If you don't understand reality, that's going to make it difficult for you to navigate life and you're going to come across as unhinged.
Do you still think that it's possible Trump won in a landslide??
Do you recognize, at least, how unhinged and crazy that sounds, given that all the experts - including Republicans and Trump's own people - disagree with the stupidly false claim?
Marshal... "Uh...totally did. "
Point to the text, then point to the proof that it's false. Data, not your delusional opinions.
Response to your comment from March 13, 2021 at 12:11 PM:
"1. The Georgia GOP lost to(sic) critical Senate votes last year. This, in an ultra-conservative state.
True. Look at you! Saying something that isn't a lie! So proud of you!
"2. According to the experts in Georgia..."
I love your appeal to "experts" when those "experts" validate your ignorance, corruption and lies.
"...there is no sign, no evidence, no hint of any serious amount of voter fraud in that election."
But this ignores the alterations of election laws by those who do NOT have the authority to do so. These illegal alterations make legal and valid which were not before the illegal alterations. It's easy enough to say there's no fraud after first making legitimate what was not prior to changing the laws.
"Again, as a point of fact in the real world, the Democrats won two Senate seats in Georgia cuz they had more turn out..."
Turnout was corrupted by the unauthorized changes in election law. It was further enhanced in the runoffs after disillusioned voters chose to sit out rather than have their votes illegally cancelled by the newly allowed invalid ballots. Having better turnout because your illegitimate changes compelled honest people to figure there was no point in voting is not the same as actually convincing more people your candidates are better for the state. But such things don't matter to cheaters.
"3. Do you doubt for even one second that Georgia's GOP does not want to lose other elections? And want to see fewer Democrats to turn out to vote than Republicans?"
A typical nonsense question you stupidly think is clever. No party wants to lose. Why does that surprise you? No party wants to see the opposition compel more turnout for their candidates. If there are only 100 voters, I want to see at least 51 vote for me rather than my opponent. Good gosh, I'm so ashamed to speak the truth on this preference shared by absolutely everyone on earth! So yeah, there's no issue with the GOP hoping to see fewer people turn out to vote for the Idiot Party (Democrats/socialists), and no doubt, you idiots feel the same about GOP voters.
"4. Do you doubt for one second that the reason they're trying to pass these laws is to decrease the number of Democrats who turn out to vote?"
You're implying the GOP is looking to do something nefarious by passing laws that strengthen the integrity of the voting process. Having an improved safe in my bank is meant to decrease the number of thieves that might succeed in robbing me. Having stronger election laws is meant to decrease the number of invalid, illegal and ineligible voters showing up to vote for Democrats (as well as the few who might do so for the GOP---conservatives don't like any cheaters. Dems don't care so long as they win.).
So yeah. I totally doubt that the purpose is solely to reduce Democratic voters, as opposed to preventing fraud, abuse and other means with which Democrats are cool so long as they win. Why you're so eager to allow cheaters to succeed is beyond me...except that it's who you are.
"If you do, then you're just blindly partisanly naive. Of course that's why all of these GOP legislators and all these conservative states are passing these laws. Precisely to decrease Democrat turn out for their elections. Don't be stupid enough or naive enough to believe otherwise."
Prove it.
"Anyone who says otherwise is just a God damned liar."
I don't appreciate you using that expression here. Especially since it is connected to a lie, which makes you the liar....again.
Whose blog is this?
Response to your arrogance from March 13, 2021 at 3:23 PM:
"Unless you answer questions directly, I'm done here."
Oh my gosh! Whatever would I do? But I have no problem answering. Just be prepared to answer a few yourself, Sheila.
"1.Do you SERIOUSLY think that these GOP types don't want to discourage/decrease Democrat voters?"
"Types"? What the hell does THAT mean?
I seriously know that the GOP want to discourage illegitimate ballots from being counted as legitimate so that only eligible voters are counted...one vote per eligible voter. I seriously know they especially want all voters to abide whatever rules are set in place by the state legislature...the only body authorized by state and federal constitutions to set election law. If that results in fewer Dem voters, that's only because those that remain are actually eligible and actually filling out ballots according to state law. Is that direct enough for you, Sparky? What could possibly be your problem with this? What evidence do you have to suggest they wish anything more nefarious than to follow the law?
"2. Do you SERIOUSLY think that these GOP types aren't doing this precisely to increase their chances of winning in these GOP states, hoping to decrease Democrat turnout?"
I seriously know they intend to prevent fraud and the cancelling of legitimately cast ballots due to the counting of invalid ballots. I know they intend that should they lose an election, it was a loss resulting from a fair and legitimate election. I know, as they do, the chance of losing is less if there is no cheating by Democrats than if there is. Thus, by strengthening election integrity, they know they will increase their chances of winning elections. Is that direct enough for you, Sally?
"3. Do you acknowledge that these two Democrat senators in Georgia won legitimately and that there was NO election fraud sufficient to take the vote from the Republicans? In fact, that there is NO data to suggest that their was any effort by Democrats to interfere with the election in greater numbers than their were by Republicans?"
3a---I acknowledge that I cannot guarantee that the two Dem Senators in Georgia won legitimately, and that you certainly cannot prove that to be the case. More likely, based on what I've heard from people discouraged by the general election in November, it's very likely many Republican voters sat out the runoffs thereby giving the election to the two buffoons of the Democratic party.
3b---I don't know if you're referring to the runoffs or the general election in November. If the latter, there is plenty of "data" that suggests Dems cheated as they always do, and certainly in greater numbers than Republicans do. You're dealing with two distinctly different types of people. Lefties cheat. Center-right people cherish the rule of law. Is that direct enough for you, Bucky?
"4. Do you acknowledge that all the election experts are saying that these elections were won legitimately in the most secure election ever?"
No, because I've seen no polling of "all the election experts". What I've seen is you citing "experts" involved in the very elections that are under suspicion. I know why YOU would cite them, but honest people don't take the word of those suspected of being involved in a crime. You've produced no evidence other than the word of those you call "experts". Their word is not sufficient to make your case. It's their word against those who say their elections were corrupt. Is that direct enough for you, Putz?
"5. Do you acknowledge that Trump was a God damned liar when he said he won and that the election was stolen? That there was NO basis in reality for him to make that claim? that it wasn't a "matter of opinion" he was stating... that it was a stupidly false claim? That, in fact, he lost the election soundly?"
5a---I acknowledge that you're not a Christian if you can't control what you type and think you're justified in using the Lord's Name in vain. Save that for your cesspool of a blog and don't do it here. IF you can provide evidence that the election was on the up and up and that there wasn't enough fraud to swing the election for Biden, then I can acknowledge that Trump's OPINION was wrong.
5b---There's plenty of basis for Trump, and 80 million Americans, to believe the election was stolen (I'm counting the Dems who believe it, too). Someday, one of you lefty asshats will have to actually take one example of evidence of fraud and prove it has no merit. Until then, there's no reason for anyone to change their mind regarding the election being stolen. But we won't burn a Wendy's over it.
5c---In order to state that it was a false claim, you'll have to provide evidence that it is.
5d---If we pretend there was no fraud, despite all the evidence no one cares to investigate, litigate or even pretend exists, we can can pretend Trump lost soundly. Unfortunately, there is indeed all that evidence no one cares to investigate, litigate or even pretend exists.
And of course I can easily acknowledge that you lack the integrity to even try to prove any of the evidence has no merit. You've proven that already. Is that direct enough for you, you lying fake Christian?
Also, from your childishness from March 13, 2021 at 4:24 PM
"IF it is true that those who believe in modern Trump style conservatism are truly down to 30-40% of the nation (and it is - which is sad, because it should not be anywhere near that number! What an indictment on the US), would you want that minority to rule if they could rig the rules to make it possible to win the elections?
Would you want minority rule of the nation?"
What polling are you trying to use here to come up with any number you pull out of your ass? As of Feb 3-18, 2021, respondents to Gallup put it like this:
Republicans 26%, Independents 41% and Dumbasses 32%
These percentages have remained relatively the same, with slight variations fluctuating in the same general range, going back to Jan of 2004. Sometimes it ebbs towards Republicans, sometimes toward Independents and sometimes back toward you Dumbasses. As such...and pay attention here, Nutless....either party in the White House is in the minority. Fortunately for us, with each passing day, Biden is making sure we will regain the House, perhaps even the Senate, in 2022 and perhaps beyond. And what we're seeing right now, with the push to pass HR 1/SR 1, is the Dems attempting to rig the rules to make it possible to prevent the GOP...or anyone else not Democrat, for that matter...from ever winning again. But that's how you lefties roll. Cheating, corruption of the law, by whatever means necessary.
Is that direct enough for you, you pathetic reprobate?
More later....
You answered directly enough to show that you're delusional. The facts are that Trump lost the election. He tried challenging but could never ever present data to prove that there was anything wrong with the election.
It was not an opinion, it was a lie when he said he won the election in a landslide. It was a stupid lie that only delusional and stupid people would believe. I'm sorry you're in that mix. May your eyes be opened. May your mind be set straight.
At the risk of getting sucked into this mess, I do have a question.
Isn't it possible to acknowledge that Biden won the election, but that a) election security is an issue that should be improved, and b) that there are enough questions (at least with the appearance of legitimacy) that should be thoroughly investigated?
Remember the BIG story about Trump’s phone call with a GA election official, that was touted as damn near criminal by the media? Well, it looks like they “misquoted” Trump and have had to issue some quiet and low key “retractions”. I’m sure it was just an honest mistake and that they’re very concerned with getting the accurate information out now that months have gone by.
"Isn't it possible to acknowledge that Biden won the election, but that a) election security is an issue that should be improved, and b) that there are enough questions (at least with the appearance of legitimacy) that should be thoroughly investigated?"
Sure it is. This ain't Dan's blog, so quite a bit of speculation and deeper thought is permissible.
"Remember the BIG story about Trump’s phone call with a GA election official, that was touted as damn near criminal by the media? Well, it looks like they “misquoted” Trump and have had to issue some quiet and low key “retractions”."
But how can serious, professional journalists make such a mistake? Were there no means by which they could've gotten the story correct in the beginning, or are they indeed partisan hacks seeking only ways to disparage conservatives and Trump? Too often we see conservative outlets...and bloggers and smaller on-line outlets...first to point out what should easily have been understood by these large news organizations Dan wants us to believe are heroic defenders of truth.
Craig... "Isn't it possible to acknowledge that Biden won the election, but that a) election security is an issue that should be improved, and b) that there are enough questions (at least with the appearance of legitimacy) that should be thoroughly investigated?"
a. Yes. BUT ONLY if you acknowledge that the experts have noted that this was the most secure election and that there was NO SERIOUS evidence of any widespread voter fraud. AND if you note that Trump was making dangerously and stupidly false claims by saying he won and that the election was stolen.
That is, the experts all say that election fraud simply is not a serious problem in the US generally speaking. There is no widespread voter fraud and that is especially true this year.
Can you agree to that?
The problem with saying, "Welllll, there ARE some cases of fraud and we SHOULD try to improve that!" ...saying that this year, when you have a corrupt president promoting false and dangerous claims about the election is it gives some credence to an utterly corrupt liar.
Beyond that, to say, Well, in every election, there are .0001 to .000001 instances of voting irregularities... and most of those are honest mistakes that get caught... BUT WE MUST make voting harder to deal with these extremely rare instances of irregularities" and those steps that make voting harder result in fewer people voting, I'd say that's not worth the cost, when the "problem" is no serious real world problem.
Agreed?
b. There are NOT "enough questions" about THIS year's election to suggest it should be more thoroughly investigated than it has been already. Trump and his gang of deviant idiots could NOT PROVE ANY serious voting irregularities. They were kicked out of court NOT because it wasn't investigated enough, but because the claims were literally legally frivolous. It was a waste of the courts' and the peoples' time and money in obeisance to a corrupt jackass.
Agreed?
That is, do you agree with ALL the serious experts that this year's election was the most secure and that there is NO serious concerns raised this year in particular, and generally, in other years?
Do you recognize that there is no data to support the claim that this year's election was more problematic than other years?
Good Lord.
"I know it scares you and probably makes you feel sad to think about it, but look at the data..."
You followed this with opinion, not data. It's funny how you constantly reject everything I produce when you ask for data, and then offer opinion and expect me to accept it as actual data. It isn't even close.
"One trap is its steady movement to the right, which has distanced the party from the moderate voters who hold the balance of power in a two-party system."
First of all, I could not find anything about this Patterson guy that speaks to his own political leanings. I did find something he did in, I believe it was 2017, wherein he discusses the fact that voter/election fraud does indeed exist to a greater extent than asshats like you have the honesty to admit. But never mind. I'll just deal with what you think is akin to "data".
With regard to the quote above, moving to center has never been a game winner for Republican politicians. Sticking strongly to conservative principles is what conservative voters prefer from those who ask of them their votes. What's more, the same can be said of the Democrat Party, which has moved way to the extreme left. So, so-called "moderates" of either party, as well as "independents" are in the same boat.
"A second trap is demographic change. Younger adults and minorities vote heavily Democratic, and their numbers increase with each passing election."
This assumes those "younger" adults and minorities will forever ignore the extremist drift leftward of the Democratic Party and will suffer easily the problems the party continues to cause to our nation and its culture. You wackjobs will only get away with blaming all the problems you cause on the conservatives for so long...unless all who vote Democrat are terminally stupid. If they're not, they'll also be forced to forgo liberties and rights to cater to the most egregiously perverse and marxist (same thing). How long will lefties be able to stand it?
"Right-wing media are the Republicans’ third trap. A powerful force within the party, they have tied the GOP to policy positions and versions of reality that are blunting its ability to govern and impeding its efforts to attract new sources of support. "
Wow. That's like saying truth, reality and reason are traps. Then again, given how those things are anathema to the left half of the nation, it does present a challenge with regard to doing that which best serves the entirety of the nation.
"A fourth trap is the large tax cuts that the GOP has three times handed to the wealthy and that has created a split between its working-class supporters and marketplace conservatives. "
This really speaks volumes as to discovering the political leanings of the author. Without digging more deeply into his opinion (such as getting and reading the book from which this crap comes), I can only think of two tax cuts he might be referencing (all three if GW Bush's two cuts are considered). In each case, all income classes benefited. Generally, Trump's cuts benefited 80% of all taxpayers, the lower levels more than the upper, and Bush's resulted in a bigger portion of the low end no longer paying income taxes. Conservatives of all income levels understand these things and unlike the covetous left, do not expect a windfall from a tax cut if their annual income is on the low end. Seeing those who achieved getting benefits from tax policy does not bother the conservative.
"The fifth trap is the GOP’s disregard for democratic norms and institutions, including its effort through voter ID laws to suppress the vote of minorities and lower-income Americans."
Definitely. This guy's a leftist asshat. The GOP does NOT have disregard for democratic norms and institutions. Name one. Voter ID laws suppress nothing but the vote of those who are not eligible to vote or those who intend to commit voter fraud.
Even if I pretend any of the above is "data", it's really crappy data that isn't at all an accurate reflection of anything but leftist fantasy. No wonder you like it.
As to your NBC link, that's a joke as well. Their "data" speaks to changes in both parties. But one thing stood out to me:
"In the last decade, self-identified Democrats have gone from 42 percent male and 58 percent female in 2010 to 30 percent male and 61 percent female in 2020. And self-identified Republicans, who were one evenly split between genders in 2010, have become more male. In 2020, the self-identified Republicans were 54 percent male and 46 percent female."
This shows just how wussy-fied Dems are. At the same time, 54-46 is still rather evenly split between genders...as in, "only two genders!"
The link pretty much admits that demographics shift all the time. More importantly, it admits that party affiliation is no guarantee regarding how one might vote. In that same vein, not registering Republican doesn't mean one won't still vote Republican. I once contributed to the party and was a member. I stopped doing that some time ago, but I've never voted for anyone who wasn't a Republican because no Dem or socialist is worthy of my vote, given their abject and widespread stupidity and immorality.
So what we're dealing with here is your wishful thinking. Your fantasy and twisted hope. Good luck with that.
More later...
"Yes. BUT ONLY", is simply code for no. What an absurd way to start an "answer". "Sure you can, but only if you agree to my arbitrary conditions before your think for yourself or ask questions."
What a joke.
"Can you agree to that?"
In the absence of anything beyond "the experts", no I can't agree to any thing you say without hard proof.
"Agreed?"
No. See above.
"Agreed?"
Please show me the actual court cases where the evidence was all presented and found lacking as opposed to those dismissed before evidence was actually presented.
Of course I find the implicit notion that increasing election security equates to "making voting harder" to be nonsensical. Further, the implied notion that voting should always be easier, is also nonsensical. I can think of nothing in our FOG that is more important than election integrity. I'd argue that if improving election integrity slightly inconveniences a small % of voters, that it's a worthwhile trade off. I'd also argue that there should be room to accommodate that small number in a way that remains secure.
"That is, do you agree with ALL the serious experts that this year's election was the most secure and that there is NO serious concerns raised this year in particular, and generally, in other years?"
I'll simply note the absence of anything concrete to actually agree with, just Dan making assertions about what "experts' think. Since, I don;t trust Dan in general, but even less when he engages in logical fallacies, the answer would have to be no.
"Do you recognize that there is no data to support the claim that this year's election was more problematic than other years?"
That's quite a claim to expect people to accept blindly on your say so.
Hey Art, did you actually cede control of your blog to Dan, or is it just his narcissism that’s shining through?
Craig... "simply code for no. What an absurd way to start an "answer".
Of course that's not rational. Context matters. Context always matters. You can't divorce concerns raised in 2021 about election fraud from Trump's traitorous and dangerous false claims the last two years.
Do you recognize and can you gladly admit that Trump was a God damned liar when he said he won in a landslide, Craig? WTF is wrong with you people?
Craig.. "That's quite a claim to expect people to accept blindly on your say so."
Good Lord! The EXPERTS are saying so, not me! Are you out of touch with reality? Do you not know what's going on? Are you ignorant or just choosing to feign ignorance?
Trump's own experts said that this year's election were secure, more secure than ever. Are you ignorant of this? Just tell me you're ignorant of it and I'll give you a little bit of Grace. Otherwise you're just being obtuse and doing your part to defend the most perverted corrupt and dishonest president in US history. If so, shame on you. If you're just ignorant, then I apologize and I encourage you to educate yourself.
Response to your comment from March 13, 2021 at 6:34 PM:
Is any of this supposed to be more data? Speculation is all it is. Potential must be realized before such things can be cited as evidence of anything, and a second term of Trump may have resulted in even a greater shared of the black/minority support for conservative/GOP candidates. Given the horror show that is the Biden administration so far, it would be premature to suggest that anything he and his party is doing won't result in even more people looking to the right. Reports of two poor Texas border counties, heavily populated with hispanic citizens have shown a massive swing from Dem to GOP support. This is due to Trump's border policies. Now, with the clusterf**k Biden's policies have created at the border, it would be difficult to believe that support won't grow even more.
From March 13, 2021 at 7:48 PM
"Trump lost. That's a fact."
No. That's a point in contention. The best one can say is that it is reported he lost and the White House was given to Biden, over the protests regarding election fraud that were never litigated or investigated properly.
"Fact: When Trump claimed he won in a landslide, that is not an opinion, it's a false claim."
No. It's an opinion and definitionally so. Until you can prove the opinion is false, it is not a false claim. You haven't proven a thing, and no one else has either. Your continued insistence that "experts" have proven it is a false claim, because there's no proof that's been provided...certainly not by you.
"If you don't understand reality, that's going to make it difficult for you to navigate life and you're going to come across as unhinged."
I'm not concerned with how I come across to lying reprobates like you and your kind, especially since you're not willing to support your opinions with anything akin to solid evidence, "hard data" or actual proof. The reality of the situation is that we have the wrong guy in the White House and his presence there was the result of a very questionable election neither he nor his supporters have the integrity to litigate.
"Do you still think that it's possible Trump won in a landslide??"
Very much so. All indicators suggest that it's possible. But then, what constitutes a "landslide" is subjective. More precisely, I'm certain he won the election and by what margin is not as important.
"Do you recognize, at least, how unhinged and crazy that sounds, given that all the experts - including Republicans and Trump's own people - disagree with the stupidly false claim?"
Given the realities of the election, it doesn't at all sound as unhinged as some Kentucky asshat constantly repeating "stupidly false claim" without ever providing supportive evidence for saying it even once.
As far as litigating evidence of election fraud...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-won-two-thirds-of-election-lawsuits-where-merits-considered_3688543.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-07-4
"...Trump and Republicans “have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits!” Droz said in a statement. “Is that what the mainstream media is reporting?”"
Clearly, no. The mainstream doesn't have that kind of integrity. But while this article doesn't get into specifics about any of the cases, Trump-haters need to find a way to deal with the fact that the courts aren't ruling on many fraud claims the way they'd like.
If it's the case that you ARE ignorant, Craig, here's that data. Again.
IT'S OFFICIAL: THE ELECTION WAS SECURE!"
"Election officials and election security experts have long been clear: voter fraud is extraordinarily rare and our system has strong checks in place to protect the integrity of our voting process.
These are the facts."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
"“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
"TRUMP'S OWN OFFICIALS say 2020 was America’s most secure election in history
https://www.vox.com/2020/11/13/21563825/2020-elections-most-secure-dhs-cisa-krebs
This is not news. US elections have long been reliable and relatively fraud free. Catch up.
Now, GIVEN that the experts have said that there was no serious fraud, can you agree with those experts? Can you tell Marshal that Trump was making a clearly false claim when he said he won in a landslide and that the election was stolen?
"Hey Art, did you actually cede control of your blog to Dan, or is it just his narcissism that’s shining through?"
Oh, he's just doing what he always does: demanding that which he himself never makes the slightest effort to provide.
You are citing the epoch times? An unreliable source from a cultic organisation? Is that what you reduced to?
Okay, you can believe you're cultists and conspiracy theorist. I believe the experts from across the political Spectrum from across the United States to tell us that are elections are free and fair and that Trump clearly, clearly lost and there was never any doubt of it what's the votes were counted. Trump is a liar and those who believe him AR criminally stupid, criminally gullible, or hyper-partisan to an evil degree.
The facts are the facts.
"Do you recognize and can you gladly admit that Trump was a God damned liar when he said he won in a landslide, Craig? WTF is wrong with you people?"
Do you realize that I am not, nor have I ever said that "Trump won in a landslide", nor have I ever said that that particular claim was true? Do you realize that I am not, by definition, "you people"?
"Are you out of touch with reality? Do you not know what's going on? Are you ignorant or just choosing to feign ignorance?"
Ahhhhh, the appeal to the mythical, unidentified "experts" as if this particular logical fallacy is actually a valid argument.
"Trump's own experts said that this year's election were secure, more secure than ever. Are you ignorant of this?"
Which still doesn't mean that we shouldn't investigate reports of voter fraud as they happen and make improvements as appropriate. Because "more" is good enough, why try to improve.
But hey, at least you finally gave up the logical fallacy.
Since you clearly believe "Trump's experts" are pretty infallible on this, one wonders how you pick which topics to believe "Trump's experts" on.
FYU. still doesn't invalidate my point that election security should always be under scrutiny for improvement. But I know it makes you feel superior to defeat an argument that I didn't make.
Just a quick note...
Dan dares criticize my citation from Epoch Times, simply because it isn't as shady, irresponsible, and as unprofessional as that former newspaper, the New York Times. At the same time, he cites the Brennan Center as if it isn't wildly leftist and intentionally ignores evidence of election fraud because that's what lying lefties do.
More later.
The Brennan Center, while leaning left, is not irrational. They do not post conspiracy theories. They're not part of a cult.
The same cannot be said for your Source, or Q Anon, or OAN.
There is a great chasm of difference between being left-leaning or right-leaning and being part of a cult or being part that a group that pushes conspiracy theories.
Get serious.
Craig... "the appeal to the mythical, unidentified "experts" as if this particular logical fallacy is actually a valid argument."
Not aunidentified. Specifically identified in the Articles I've cited, along with all the election officials and all the states, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican. What we're hearing from all of these people is that our elections are free and fair with no serious concerns about widespread voter fraud.
And we appeal to experts on topics that we're not fully informed about because we're not informed about them. There is no data to suggest that we have a problem in the US with widespread voter fraud.
Let me say that again, read it closely and use your damn head to understand...
We have NO data that suggests widespread voter fraud in our nation.
Now, if you want to make the case that there is data that says we have widespread voter fraud, the onus is on you to provide it. But we have no data to suggest that is true.
My question to you remains, are you not aware of this? Are you ignorant about the validity of our nation's electoral process? Tell me you're ignorant and I'll be more careful to explain it to you and I'll use small words so you can understand. But I can't believe that you are that ignorant.
...If for no other reason than Trump's audacious attack on our democracy, supported by Russia, is the biggest story of the decade, of our lifetime. We've never had an idiot president who tried to undermine an election. We've never had an idiot president who refused to acknowledge that he lost. We've never had a President Who riled up his supporters to attempt to overthrow the election, or at least interrupt the election. This is historic and as a citizen, you should be informed. You should have put forth the effort to recognize that there is no data that supports the claim that our elections are anything less than secure, free and fair.
From your comment on March 13, 2021 at 8:30 PM
"Point to the text, then point to the proof that it's false. Data, not your delusional opinions."
Uh...totally did already. It's kinda the point of citing the Carter piece in the first place.
From your comment on March 16, 2021 at 4:22 PM
"Of course that's not rational. Context matters. Context always matters. You can't divorce concerns raised in 2021 about election fraud from Trump's traitorous and dangerous false claims the last two years. "
You aren't presenting context in your dodging of Craig's questions. You're deflecting so that you don't have to answer it. His questions were specific and don't require the invented "context" you demand be considered.
"Do you recognize and can you gladly admit that Trump was a God damned liar when he said he won in a landslide, Craig?"
I've asked you repeatedly not to use the emboldened phrase in my house. You delete me for accurately referring to whores and sluts as whores and sluts. You demand I not use the term "illegal alien" as well as other proper, justified and accurate words, terms and expressions at your blog. You do this under the "my house, my rules" rubric. As usual, as is typical of your dishonest hypocritical nature, you continue to ignore my rule in my house. I shouldn't expect Christian behavior from one like you who isn't truly Christian. I shouldn't expect reciprocity. But I'm demanding it anyway. Don't do it again.
From your comment on March 16, 2021 at 4:53 PM
Regarding the Brennan Center link, I could probably do a separate post for each heading in that link. But even all of them together fails to address the incredible scope of election fraud/irregularities that factored into this election, much of it your Dumbass Party seeks to codify into federal law, as if the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to dictate election law at all. At least half of the BC link is no more than opinions of people parroting the "no evidence of fraud" line, without them having done any investigations of their own. That's not "data". That's crap. It demonstrates again your double standard for demanding data versus you providing it. Someone agreeing with you is not evidence of expertise.
It also includes the word of those who are suspect in one way or another of being part of the problem. One referred to having ballots as evidence, which can be and has been recounted, without considering it is the ballots themselves that is the issue. If the ballots are invalid, they can't be counted and if they're not counted, the totals will be different, and possibly no longer have Biden winning. It includes some whose personal (or departmental) involvement in investigating fraud was extremely limited and in no way can be used as definitive proof that fraud did not occur in great enough measure. Bill Barr's department is but one example. It was in no way a comprehensive investigation, and he admitted as much.
Regarding your CISA link: This statement was released on Nov 12, 9 days after the election. To suggest they worked right up to the 12th to confirm their ultimate conclusion is absurd. Likely they had the statement ready for release the day before at least. That makes 8 days after the election. We know that ballots were being counted well after the election, and the statement admits that states were still reviewing election results at the time the statement was released. Only a partisan hack would suggest this statement has any real value, especially given the specialty of the organization versus the myriad ways fraud takes place. For example, it does not address the several states who, without consent of their legislatures, made last minute changes to their elections laws on the lame pretext of the pandemic. No "cybersecurity" can legitimize invalid ballots that were now mandated they be counted.
Finally, your Krebs link. Pardon me for snickering.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/the_man_who_said_the_election_was_the_most_secure_ever_didnt_know_about_a_massive_government_hack_by_foreign_actors.html
From you comment on March 16, 2021 at 5:16 PM:
"You are citing the epoch times? An unreliable source from a cultic organisation?"
I know, Dan. If my source isn't a left-wing rag of the sort you find appealing, nothing it say is to even be considered. You know, Tacitus described Christianity as a cult. Falun Gong is akin to disciplines such as Tai Chi and Buddhism. I don't promote either, any more than I do Mormonism, islam or a host of other faiths. But it's not Scientology, The Peoples Temple or the Branch Davidians. Nice of you to disparage them in this way. More grace embracing fraud on your part.
The founder of the movement was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the news source is the recipient of several journalism awards. This link, a source I've never seen before, gives a detailed accounting of how they're rated and why.
Most importantly, and something you routinely dismiss because of your hateful partisanship, is the info it presents. Is it true? You won't even look because you don't want to know truth, preferring to assume because you don't like the source then what it reports simply must be false. But the info in the link I provided was not the result of Epoch Times work, but simply a report of the work of someone else. It is that upon which you should be focusing your 4 year old attention span...not the fact that it is presented in the Epoch Times. An honest and rational person would not expect that info to be presented by the New York Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. They just won't report anything that even so much as hints as Trump-positive. But it is hilarious that you would cite the Epoch Times as unreliable after all the evidence I've provided for the unreliability of the left-leaning "journalists" you defend as champions of the people! I mean, that's rich!
As to the rest of your comment, simply reiterating that which you have yet to back up with substantive evidence (your links are lacking in that regard, as they are no more than other people saying the same thing you do...except you think they're word is stronger because you refer to them as "experts"). Whether or not Trump lost or Biden won is the very point that is in contention. Whether or not there was enough fraud of any kind (or multiple kinds, which is the reality) to throw the election to Biden is the very point that is in contention. My link to the Epoch Times article provides someone actually going through all the fraud cases that have been litigated according to the merits of the filed suit, the majority of which were ruled in Trump's favor. This does not count the many suits that were never heard due to problems of standing or other technicalities...not the merits of the allegations. So not only is there evidence, but what evidence which has actually been litigated has backed the contention that fraud had taken place.
Here's where you default to your ongoing "Nyuh uh" response.
Here's the latest threat news about Trump's gang of white supremacists/terrorists, inspired by your idiot president...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978463364/u-s-intelligence-agencies-warn-of-heightened-domestic-extremism-threat
But given that this is a legitimate News Group, you probably haven't heard this.
Can you clarify something. Do you truly think the BBC and NPR represent bad journalistic practices and that oan and qanon and these other conspiracy theorists operations represent better journalistic practices? Do you not know how insane that is? How objectively irrational that is?
From wikipedia...
"The Epoch Times has promoted an array of pro-Donald Trump conspiracy theories[65][66] and is known as one of Trump's closest media allies and defenders.[66][22] The paper has financially benefited from its promotion of Trump conspiracies, increasing its revenue nearly fourfold during the first three years of Trump's administration (from $3.9 million in 2016 to $15.5 million in 2019) as it catered to Trump's most ardent supporters, to whom the paper marketed itself via targeted social media advertising.[67] The publication championed Trump's Spygate conspiracy theory in its news coverage and advertising, and the Epoch Media Group's Edge of Wonder videos on YouTube have spread the far-right, pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory,[18] and embraced false "QAnon" claims.["
If a "news source " regularly passes on conspiracy theories as fact, they are not to be trusted at all, in anything they report.
Of course.
"Do you truly think the BBC and NPR represent bad journalistic practices"
Yes, if you consider allowing bias to shape news coverage bad journalism.
"and that oan and qanon and these other conspiracy theorists operations represent better journalistic practices?"
Nope.
"Do you not know how insane that is? How objectively irrational that is?"
Really acknowledging that the mainstream media is to some degree or other failing in it's alleged mission is insane? While also acknowledging that Q is not a news outlet, and OAN is biased as well is irrational?
In fact sex workers look, more election corruption... by republicans.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/18/politics/frank-artiles-arrested-sham-candidate-invs/index.html
From your comment on March 17, 2021 at 5:48 PM:
"The Brennan Center, while leaning left, is not irrational. They do not post conspiracy theories. They're not part of a cult."
First of all, "leaning left" is most indeed irrational. Leftists believe there are more than two genders; that a biological male might indeed be female simply because he says he is; that gun control is the answer to violence; that poverty is the reason for so much strife in black communities; that heavily taxing those who have acquired much is the way to help those who don't, won't or can't; that expanding government is the way to solve problems; that God would actually bless a same-sex union...and so much more blatantly and demonstrably irrational crap.
Secondly, "leaning" left is what I would call a "generous assessment". I'd say it's more accurate to insist they're fully left in all they do...though I can't admit to having reviewed absolutely everything they've done.
Third, stating that election fraud is rare is a response to a conspiracy theory that insists proposals to improve election integrity have nefarious, partisan intentions as their basis.
Fourth, while using the term "cult" when referring to a religion or faith with which you do not agree is not necessarily wrong, doing so simply because you wish to disparage them most definitely is. Just another example of how you "embrace grace". At the same time, leftism is akin to a cult given the fanatic attitude of its adherents, such as yourself.
"The same cannot be said for your Source, or Q Anon, or OAN."
First of all, the Epoch Times does not engage in conspiracy theories that you could prove. Some point to their section which I believe is entitled "Beyond Science", which reports on all manner of wacky things. This section has been referred to as an entertainment section of their site, not things they actually regard as true. Other than that, charges of wild conspiracies require evidence and a counter argument. It should also be kept in mind that a conspiracy might actually be a real thing, so be specific when you fail to provide that evidence and counter argument.
Secondly, I fail to understand your obsession with Q Anon. I've never sought out anything from Q, nor have I given much attention to what others have said about it. It's quite clear to me, however, that those like you know less than I do, and instead simply mention it as just another means to disparage those who do not regard the election as legitimate. That's just another form of lie, so I'm not surprised by your continued reference to Q Anon.
Finally, I again insist that you spent no time with OANN and as such have no basis for questioning their accuracy and reliability as a news source. Given those sources upon whom you rely and about whom you defend, you've little room to criticize.
"There is a great chasm of difference between being left-leaning or right-leaning and being part of a cult or being part that a group that pushes conspiracy theories."
Not nearly as great as the chasm between you and honesty. You constantly demonstrate a considerable lack of it.
From your comment on March 17, 2021 at 5:56 PM:
"Not aunidentified. Specifically identified in the Articles I've cited, along with all the election officials and all the states, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican. What we're hearing from all of these people is that our elections are free and fair with no serious concerns about widespread voter fraud."
If you're referring to your Brennan Center link again, doubling down doesn't make it more true or indicative of actual evidence. Most on that list have nothing to do with any actual investigations of election fraud. Those few that did were quite limited in scope...so limited as to deny them any authority to speak about all manner of fraud.
"And we appeal to experts on topics that we're not fully informed about because we're not informed about them."
Yet you haven't provide examples of such experts with regard to election fraud. The vast majority of those you cite have done nothing more than to parrot what others have said. They've not done any investigations themselves.
"We have NO data that suggests widespread voter fraud in our nation."
You can repeat this as often as you like and it would not be any more true. We have plenty of data. What we lack is serious investigation into any of it by those wishing people to believe fraud wasn't widespread.
Hell, we can't even get one of you lefty buffoons to hazard a number as to what constitutes "widespread"!!! Why don't you find an "expert" who has. I'll wait here pretending you'll actually make the effort.
"Now, if you want to make the case that there is data that says we have widespread voter fraud, the onus is on you to provide it."
You're a liar to even make this statement, given that it's been done. Now the onus is on someone to investigate the mountains of evidence to determine just how bad it is. None of you lefties have. Brennan Center hasn't.
"Are you ignorant about the validity of our nation's electoral process?"
I'm ignorant of who has established this beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm ignorant of any effort to do so. I'm ignorant of any person who has expended any effort to do so. I'm only confidant that Trump-haters and lefty asshats like you want to believe it without making that effort.
".If for no other reason than Trump's audacious attack on our democracy, supported by Russia, is the biggest story of the decade, of our lifetime."
Ah! Conspiracy theory! One perpetrated by leftist mainstream media sources you believe are holy angels from heaven.
"We've never had an idiot president who tried to undermine an election."
We still haven't. We had an idiot president immediately prior to Trump and now we have an even bigger idiot. We have had idiot Democrats attempt to undermine Trump's election...and Bush's...and pretty much every Republican president in my lifetime.
"We've never had an idiot president who refused to acknowledge that he lost."
We still haven't. What we have, however, is a president who was unseated under suspicion of an illegitimate election, perpetrated by the same people who sought to unseat him after believing he wouldn't win in 2016. No one would refuse to acknowledge a loss under these conditions. One would be an idiot NOT to refuse. And don't forget how Hillary Clinton encouraged Biden to refuse to accept the results if he lost, just as she didn't accept the results when she lost!
"We've never had a President Who riled up his supporters to attempt to overthrow the election, or at least interrupt the election."
We still haven't.
"You should have put forth the effort to recognize that there is no data that supports the claim that our elections are anything less than secure, free and fair."
Prove it.
From you comment on March 18, 2021 at 7:08 AM:
"Here's the latest threat news about Trump's gang of white supremacists/terrorists, inspired by your idiot president..."
Here's my response:
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-of-overwhelming-right-wing-terrorism/
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/myths-of-right-wing-terrorism/
https://patriotpost.us/articles/72439-the-right-wing-extremists-ruse-2020-07-27
https://medium.com/@occupydimss/study-left-wing-attacks-in-the-united-states-far-outpace-right-wing-attacks-be0f15ac438c
What you would find if you possessed the courage, honesty and work ethic to actually study these four links is something that connects them all: the subjectivity in determining "right wing" with regard to terrorism, as well as questions regarding whether or not a specific act falls under any heading of extremism, rather than just a criminal act.
What I've found since January 6th is another example of the well-known lefty tactic of exploiting a tragedy to further leftist goals. And since I've actually read this report your link cites, it's hard to not to regard it as a manifestation of this tactic. There's no mention of how they "assessed" an increase in any legitimate threat. If they're simply trying to convey the notion that conditions are such that a rise in extremism is possible, they should've said so. Instead, they're acting like it's a given that violence will occur that is more than simply criminal behavior unrelated to any religious, political or ideological motivation. There's one category, for example, related to racial motivations. Right now, I don't know how it can get worse. The BLM movement is a typical example. Yet, there's no mention of any white supremacist groups actually mobilizing to cause any race-related violent acts.
No. This isn't credible. Without something more tangible, I see this as no more than a set up by our current administration to push their more anti-liberty agenda...especially regarding gun control measures. Lefty asshats like you fall for this crap every time.
I will acknowledge this, however: This administration...intentionally or not...is indeed creating a climate where revolt is more possible than ever. It began with the virus, then the election and now Biden's many horrid policy proposals and EOs. There's really only so much even truly peace-loving real Christians and conservatives can tolerate.
By the way, a "legitimate" news group would ask a question or two regarding what evidence exists that these concerns are truly valid. NPR didn't.
You're out of touch with reality. Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you're fully delusional.
Trump lost.
Trump lied when he said he won in a landslide.
Trump lied when he said the election was stolen.
NPR and BBC are highly ethical journalistic operations.
OAN and Epoch Times are not. They're just not.
...and on it goes.
Good luck trying to figure out which hole to take a dump in and which one to wash your hands in. I hope you can manage that much, but I imagine you think the toilet is part of the conspiracy to overthrow your cherished Leader.
From your comment on March 18, 2021 at 9:52 AM:
"Can you clarify something. Do you truly think the BBC and NPR represent bad journalistic practices and that oan and qanon and these other conspiracy theorists operations represent better journalistic practices? Do you not know how insane that is? How objectively irrational that is?"
Do you truly expect honest, intelligent people to regard this as an honest, intelligent question? Because it isn't. Not even close.
First, Q Anon is not a news organization. Neither is Q for that matter. What's your fixation with either of these if it's not solely to connect conservatism with that which is not considered worth the time of day by the vast majority of them? Only a liar would continually do something like this.
Secondly, why do you continue to pretend you spend ANY time with OANN? Without being a regular patron...without having a body of work to which you can point in order to prove your baseless and uninformed bullshit opinion...you're just lying about their work. Thus, your opinion of them is worthless (not unlike most all of your opinions, but I digress).
Thirdly, neither BBC nor NPR are news sources most people think of when referring to fake news and unreliable sources of truth, facts and news. Why aren't you instead listing the worst culprits, such as CNN, MSNBC, the NYT and WaPo, for example? I showed problems with your NPR link above, but if I was forced to choose between it and OANN, with my limited exposure to both, I'd choose OANN. I've exposure to enough questionable NPR presentations to give OANN more of a chance.
Fourthly, you show again why it is YOU who is insane and irrational when you ask bullshit, intentionally misleading questions like this, that demand clarifications of the type my questions should elicit. But then, you ARE a journalism student, right? I would suppose you were trained in the same false practices which manifest in the sources I listed in my previous point. It's just the type of bullshit framing they employ routinely. True enemies of the people.
From your comment on March 18, 2021 at 10:26 AM:
"If a "news source " regularly passes on conspiracy theories as fact, they are not to be trusted at all, in anything they report."
Ah...I see. You mean things like the Russia Collusion Hoax, Jussie Smollett hoax, Ukraine hoax, Covington Kids hoax, and Brett Kavanaugh hoax...things over which people like Rachel Maddow obsessed (Russian Collusion), Brian Stelter (Trump's health), etc. Mainstream media sources heavily reported on these and other falsehoods, and as you say, I can't see how they can be trusted in anything they report. Then again, there's also all that "fake news" I presented in multiple posts not long ago. True enemies of the people.
Regarding your comment from March 18, 2021 at 7:25 PM,
...so what? Is this supposed to mitigate all the election fraud perpetrated against the Trump campaign? Wow. Pretty desperate.
From March 18, 2021 at 9:33 PM:
"Trump lost."
Trump's term expired. Whether or not he lost the election is in contention. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
"Trump lied when he said he won in a landslide."
You lie when you say you're a Christian. Trump's opinion may be wrong, but it isn't a lie if no one is willing to investigate his claims. It's just his opinion.
"Trump lied when he said the election was stolen."
It's his opinion and it's based on mountains of evidence, very very little of which has actually been investigated. But where claims have had their days in court, most were ruled in Trump's favor.
"NPR and BBC are highly ethical journalistic operations.
OAN and Epoch Times are not."
You couldn't begin to prove either claim. But again, you defend the integrity of two sources that aren't the main suspects when "fake media" is mentioned, so you're once again basically putting up a straw man argument. But since you're a liar lacking ethics and integrity yourself, you have to deflect once again.
Marshal... " Trump's opinion may be wrong, but it isn't a lie if no one is willing to investigate his claims. It's just his opinion. "
No. It's a damned lie, a stupid lie. It's NOT an opinion and that's the last time I'm pointing this out. An opinion would be, "I'm not sure if I lost or not... I don't think the votes were counted correctly..." But saying "I won in a landslide" makes it sound like you know what the votes were and you know that you won by a large number of votes... TRUMP did NOT know that because he is a worthless piece of shit loser who only pretends to be a winner. He's been a sad, pathetic, bullying, lying loser his entire life and he remains a lying, bullying loser even in this most overt of losses.
You can't PRETEND to say, "If you don't count the votes I don't like that were against me, I won in a landslide..." NOT if you are a rational adult.
He's a spoiled little brat whose ONLY genius is in bullying and getting idiots to believe his stupidly false claims.
The election is over. Trump lost. Biden won. Trump will go down in history as one of the worst, most corrupt, most dishonest and most deviant of all our presidents. You don't have to like it and you don't have to believe it, but that is the simple reality of it all.
Good luck trying to open doors and walk across rooms, man. With your level of delusion, it's gotta be difficult.
Response to your comment on March 19, 2021 at 8:52 AM:
"Good luck trying to open doors and walk across rooms, man. With your level of delusion, it's gotta be difficult."
Good luck trying to enter Heaven, man. With your level of "grace embracing" hatred, it's gonna be difficult.
"No. It's a damned lie, a stupid lie. It's NOT an opinion and that's the last time I'm pointing this out."
You were wrong the first time, but I'll hold you to it.
"An opinion would be..."
...clearly whatever Dan Trabue demands it must be. Even more clearly, you're offering your opinion about what constitutes an opinion and pretending you have the authority to deny Trump's opinion because you don't like the sound of it and have no way to honestly argue against it.
"But saying "I won in a landslide" makes it sound like you know what the votes were and you know that you won by a large number of votes..."
Well, when you were winning in all the battleground states until the counting was stopped in the middle of the night, when you increased your vote total to a number greater than any previous president, when increasing one's vote total over that of one's first term has historically meant a second term, when you increase your share of black and minority votes higher than any other GOP candidate, when you win 18 of the 19 bellwhether counties, when your rallies consistently draw tens of thousands of attendees (if not more) while your opponent draws none...all these realities and more would convince anyone they won by a landslide.
"TRUMP did NOT know that because he is a worthless piece of shit loser who only pretends to be a winner."
This is a guy who parlayed money from his father into a fortune his father never came close to accumulating, became known worldwide, won the presidency against a witch about whom everyone thought was a lock...yeah, he's just pretending. You're a moron, and you're NOT pretending.
"You can't PRETEND to say, "If you don't count the votes I don't like that were against me, I won in a landslide..." NOT if you are a rational adult."
Perhaps. But of course he's never said anything remotely like that, and rational adults don't make up shit like this. His position, and rightfully so, is that if you counted only valid ballots, excluding those illegally made valid by rogue courts and governors, it's quite possible he won by a landslide. Now, one can quibble about how much of a lead constitutes a landslide, but what matters is simply whether counting legitimate ballots only would or wouldn't have resulted in a second term. It most likely would have.
"He's a spoiled little brat whose ONLY genius is in bullying and getting idiots to believe his stupidly false claims."
First, you seem to believe that the millions suspicious of the election results ever needed Trump to say anything at all in order to be suspicious. Trump doesn't regulate what can be seen by the public with regard to election results, practices and the plethora of allegations of fraud. All honest people, including about 30% of Democrat voters, saw what had happened and aren't buying it was legit. Yet the Dems and their minions in the media got all you idiots to believe it was.
Secondly, I'm fascinated with this accusation of Trump being a "bully". I know he called a college girl a lying dog-faced pony soldier, I know he called an Iowa farmer a liar and fat, I know he called a UAW autoworker "full of shit" and a "horse's ass", I know he bullied a truck driver by insisting he was drunk when the trucker was unable to avoid the car driven by Trump's wife, killing her and his daughter, I know he bullied a female staffer by pinning her against the wall and shoving his hand up her privates, I know he bullied a foreign president to fire a prosecutor, I know he constantly suggests beating up the sitting president...oh, wait...that wasn't Trump. Who was it that bullied so many people? His name's on the tip of my tongue...
"The election is over. Trump lost. Biden won."
Rational, honest people with such certainty aren't opposed to proving it. They don't dismiss allegations that they are certain are false and instead are eager to show how false they are so that no one can accuse them. But we aren't seeing anything like that with the Trump-haters who clearly aren't honest nor certain in their supposed victory. Indeed, they're doing all they can to try to make people believe there's no evidence, when clearly there's tons of it. They've got their idiots to parrot the claim, but they just can't seem to get 75 million Trump voters, nor 30% of Democrats to buy in...and they won't if they don't do a damned thing to prove the allegations are false. YOU certainly aren't capable, and you must acknowledge that because you haven't done squat to try.
"Trump will go down in history as one of the worst, most corrupt, most dishonest and most deviant of all our presidents."
He'll go down on your little sister before he'll go down in history in that manner. What's more, Biden seems intent on doing all he can to show just how much smarter and effective a president Trump was than Biden could possibly be and how much more so than Obama ever was. The economy improved in direct response to Trump's tax and regulatory policies, which also led to the best unemployment numbers since the 1960s and the best black unemployment numbers since they began keeping track; he helped to negotiate peace deals in the Middle East where Obama never could; he started no wars and brought home troops; he negotiated the release of around 50 Americans unjustly detained in foreign countries; he....well...I did a post on all the great things he did that totally make your claim the delusional and desperate fantasy it is. You don't have to like it and you don't have to believe it, but that is the simple reality of it all.
Marshal... "He'll go down..."
This is precisely the sort of sexually predatory language and actions and attitudes that trump and modern conservatives represent. Your disdain and hate and objectification of women is disgusting. No wonder you're a friend of rapists, you sick shit.
You and that murdering son of a preacher down in Georgia threat and you're just sick, you indecent pervert.
I have no sisters but your decadence and depravity are visible to all women and their allies.
"This is precisely the sort of sexually predatory language and actions and attitudes that trump and modern conservatives represent. Your disdain and hate and objectification of women is disgusting. No wonder you're a friend of rapists, you sick shit."
Well, well, well. Look at you exploiting abuse of women to pretend you're offended by my comment! And from a defender of our new president accused of sexual assault...an assault you continue to ignore as if it never happened despite the victim's insistence that it did, and her courage in trying to get fakes like you to do something about it. Talk about a sick shit!
You of all people have no business criticizing the moral behavior of anyone, given your enslavement to perversity. But then, since you have no real and legitimate criticisms of Trump or conservatives in general...only lies and whining...you take the bait of my comment and chomp down on it in just the fake way I knew you would. Good gosh, you're so predictable, and so predictably false! There's no greater threat to women and womenhood than a leftist like you. Such a vile hypocrite you are!
Post a Comment