Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House, Fox News projects

[Prizm123 1,086]

9 minutes ago, moxy said:

 

This is a pretty good chart. Both NYT and CNN are both "left of center." I'm speaking of far right. Which is why you won't see me call out the right-of-center Fox News, as long as it's not the opinion side. (Hannity is a far right source, for example)

 

But yes, Huffington Post is far left. I haven't seen it cited in ages, but if I did see it in a thread I was active in, I would call it out.

i would flip epoch times and national review personally. there are some nuggets of good reporting in the national review from time to time. none from epoch times.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Specifically on this forum, I see almost exclusively right-wing disinformation sources. I rarely see left-wing disinformation sources. (I'm sure somebody could post links, but it's not my point. My point is that the right-wing disinformation seems to outweigh the left-wing disinformation sources by a fair amount) I believe the main reason for this is that the far right has been very successful in selling a false narrative that established fact-based sources have been compromised and are untrustworthy, and those on the far right have been happy to uncritically accept that false narrative. So I agree that there disinformation sources on both sides, but right-wing sources seem to be used far more often to prop up a narrative.

 

39 minutes ago, moxy said:

 

This is a pretty good chart. Both NYT and CNN are both "left of center." I'm speaking of far right. Which is why you won't see me call out the right-of-center Fox News, as long as it's not the opinion side. (Hannity is a far right source, for example)

 

But yes, Huffington Post is far left. I haven't seen it cited in ages, but if I did see it in a thread I was active in, I would call it out.

They can slap the word "science" on subjective "left" "right" attribution all they like, that media bias attribution has no overall importance to decide if something is truthful or not. Media all over the spectrum, particularly media people perceived as more factual or more "centrist" have been blatantly dishonest, I've seen more honesty and especially worthwhile journalism out of the Intercept than CNN, the AP, and so on. It's the breakdown of trustworthy institutions, exposure of dishonesty by alternative media, the non-desire of those prominent institutions to hold the powerful (particularly on their side), and even themselves, accountable that has resulted in the rise of that other media. Where the "left" or "right" can be useful is in themes of dishonesty, but I've noticed the vast majority of that dishonesty is more institutional in the more "prominent" outlets. Their bias favors the powerful of either side, which starts to touch upon "establishment". It's alarming we're in a time where those prominent outlets, when exposed, are worsening their bias for those powerful institutions, and overtly trying to censor others, rather than taking the hint and correcting their exposed dishonesty.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

20 minutes ago, Prizm123 said:

i would flip epoch times and national review personally. there are some nuggets of good reporting in the national review from time to time. none from epoch times.

I mean, some of it's subjective, and I'm sure there are times when a center-left or right crosses over, but it's a handy reference if you want to get a general idea. Plus this chart doesn't even include the mom and pop propaganda blogs that seem to be quoted often.

[moxy 1,051]

8 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

They can slap the word "science" on subjective "left" "right" attribution all they like, that media bias attribution has no overall importance to decide if something is truthful or not. Media all over the spectrum, particularly media people perceived as more factual or more "centrist" have been blatantly dishonest, I've seen more honesty and especially worthwhile journalism out of the Intercept than CNN, the AP, and so on. It's the breakdown of trustworthy institutions, exposure of dishonesty by alternative media, the non-desire of those prominent institutions to hold the powerful (particularly on their side), and even themselves, accountable that has resulted in the rise of that other media. Where the "left" or "right" can be useful is in themes of dishonesty, but I've noticed the vast majority of that dishonesty is more institutional in the more "prominent" outlets. Their bias favors the powerful of either side, which starts to touch upon "establishment". It's alarming we're in a time where those prominent outlets, when exposed, are worsening their bias for those powerful institutions, and overtly trying to censor others, rather than taking the hint and correcting their exposed dishonesty.

Like I've said before, if you've made up your mind to distrust established media, and are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that while any organization has bad actors and/or makes mistakes (which should be corrected), and also that sometimes, or often, they will report findings that are at odds with your worldview, and you expect these sources to alter reality rather than you altering your worldview based on factual evidence, then we're just not going to agree. The established media as a whole gets it right much more often than they get it wrong. You disagree, I get it.

 

But if you've also decided that the mom and pop (and foreign seeded) propaganda blogs that typically don't even show up on the first or second page of a Google search are the truth that established media have abandoned, then all you've really done is cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, moxy said:

Like I've said before, if you've made up your mind to distrust established media, and are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that while any organization has bad actors and/or makes mistakes (which should be corrected), and also that sometimes, or often, they will report findings that are at odds with your worldview, and you expect these sources to alter reality rather than you altering your worldview based on factual evidence, then we're just not going to agree. The established media as a whole gets it right much more often than they get it wrong. You disagree, I get it.

 

But if you've also decided that the mom and pop (and foreign seeded) propaganda blogs that typically don't even show up on the first or second page of a Google search are the truth that established media have abandoned, then all you've really done is cut off your nose to spite your face.

I didn't "make up my mind" to distrust the mainstream media, they earned my distrust through their repeated actions of dishonesty, coupled with their corrupt connections, which only exacerbated in recent years. Whether they get it right more often than not doesn't matter when the times they get it wrong are vital, often intentional, and when they wind up acting maliciously against their own profession. The biggest advocates of censorship (who spend their time trying to get others de-platformed and destroyed) right now are paradoxically in the media, and shouldn't be a shock they're from mainstream institutions. This is why their left-right "leaning" is of utter unimportance to far more fundamental issues.

[Dashinka 24,505]

35 minutes ago, moxy said:

Like I've said before, if you've made up your mind to distrust established media, and are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that while any organization has bad actors and/or makes mistakes (which should be corrected), and also that sometimes, or often, they will report findings that are at odds with your worldview, and you expect these sources to alter reality rather than you altering your worldview based on factual evidence, then we're just not going to agree. The established media as a whole gets it right much more often than they get it wrong. You disagree, I get it.

 

But if you've also decided that the mom and pop (and foreign seeded) propaganda blogs that typically don't even show up on the first or second page of a Google search are the truth that established media have abandoned, then all you've really done is cut off your nose to spite your face.

Trust is based on the actions of the mainstream Leftist media.  When they actually do things trustworthy, then maybe they will actually be trusted.

[abum 324]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I didn't "make up my mind" to distrust the mainstream media, they earned my distrust through their repeated actions of dishonesty, coupled with their corrupt connections, which only exacerbated in recent years. Whether they get it right more often than not doesn't matter when the times they get it wrong are vital, often intentional, and when they wind up acting maliciously against their own profession. The biggest advocates of censorship (who spend their time trying to get others de-platformed and destroyed) right now are paradoxically in the media, and shouldn't be a shock they're from mainstream institutions. This is why their left-right "leaning" is of utter unimportance to far more fundamental issues.

a great quote!

 

let me change the subject of the quote a bit:

 

I didn't "make up my mind" to distrust Donald Trump and GOP, Trump and the GOP earned my distrust through their repeated actions of dishonesty, coupled with their corrupt connections, which only exacerbated in recent years. Whether they get it right more often than not doesn't matter when the times they get it wrong are vital, often intentional, and when they wind up acting maliciously against their own profession. 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,505]

12 hours ago, abum said:

a great quote!

 

let me change the subject of the quote a bit:

 

I didn't "make up my mind" to distrust Donald Trump and GOP, Trump and the GOP earned my distrust through their repeated actions of dishonesty, coupled with their corrupt connections, which only exacerbated in recent years. Whether they get it right more often than not doesn't matter when the times they get it wrong are vital, often intentional, and when they wind up acting maliciously against their own profession. 

 

 

 

Could say the same thing about the Democrats or pretty much any career politician.  The fact of the matter is the Democrats have an exceedingly long history of racism and bigotry which has only been masked by their current actions.  When one Party constantly throws out accusations of racism, it makes one wonder just what they are trying to hide.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Bravo, Texas!:

 

Quote

 

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

 

The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.

 

Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-at-supreme-court-election-rules/

 

Pretty sad when they're doing a better job representing Republicans (and Trump voters in general) than Republican leaders in the very states they're suing. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Quote

Texas Case Challenges Election Directly at Supreme Court

Quote

Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction.”  One of those categories concerns “Controversies between two or more states.” Texas’s suit is exactly that. The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases, at its discretion.  But it is incumbent upon the high court to take this case, especially when it presents a such a cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as President on January 20, 2021.

 

The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case. The four offending states each violated the U.S. Constitution in two ways.

Quote

First, they violated the Electors Clause of Article II of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states changed the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures. The Electors Clause requires that each State “shall appoint” its presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Quote

The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat the ballots. Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way, and another Florida county treated ballots a different way. Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.

Quote

Importantly, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.  It is not dependent upon disputed facts.  Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the State of Texas doesn’t need to prove a single case of fraud to win. It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures. As the Supreme Court said in 1892 in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, “Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time…”.

 

Massive article worth the read, here's a few excerpts of the important points.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/kobach-texas-case-challenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/

 

Your move, SCOTUS. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,505]

16 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

Massive article worth the read, here's a few excerpts of the important points.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/kobach-texas-case-challenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/

 

Your move, SCOTUS. 

This is what needs to be done to fix the messy way elections are conducted.  I don't see it changing 2020, but hopefully SOCTUS will do something to clean up the mess going forward.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

35 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

This is what needs to be done to fix the messy way elections are conducted.  I don't see it changing 2020, but hopefully SOCTUS will do something to clean up the mess going forward.

A SCOTUS I'm hoping for (against the odds), a SOCTUS that will knock some sense into people. Fitting Freudian slip. 😂

[moxy 1,051]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/07/kobach-texas-case-challenges-election-directly-at-supreme-court/

Props for not citing some mom and pop propaganda blog... this one is a professional propaganda blog.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

 

23 minutes ago, moxy said:

Props for not citing some mom and pop propaganda blog... this one is a professional propaganda blog.

Legal analysis by Kris Kobach, what ever happened to the election fraud panel he was running? What an embarrassment the man is.

 

This is reminiscint of those embarrassing lawsuits trying to overturn Obama's presidency , also an embarrassing disgrace. It's hilarious that only these four states violated the rights of Texas. 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,505]

28 minutes ago, moxy said:

Props for not citing some mom and pop propaganda blog... this one is a professional propaganda blog.

Interesting, you seem to really be stuck on sources.  Unfortunately your approved sources are not covering this story for whatever reason, but not sure any of that is relative to the facts in the story.

6 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

 

Legal analysis by Kris Kobach, what ever happened to the election fraud panel he was running? What an embarrassment the man is.

 

This is reminiscint of those embarrassing lawsuits trying to overturn Obama's presidency , also an embarrassing disgrace. It's hilarious that only these four states violated the rights of Texas. 

 

 

No more embarrassing that wasting taxpayer money on a SP to investigate nothing.