I've been pretty silent on the results of the election, because I've chosen to follow my usual practice of waiting for more information rather than jumping to conclusions. Given that, I'll hit some high points.
1. It seems likely that there was some degree of voting irregularity and the fact that most of it is concentrated in heavily DFL districts in heavily DFL cities, in swing states seems suspicious to me.
2. Having said that, I don't believe that we will see enough irregularity to put Trump over the top.
3. This notion that the media or other parties call elections in any sort of official sense seems problematic.
4. While I believe that the Trump campaign should avail themselves of whatever legal avenues are open to them, I also believe that Trump and his surrogates are hurting themselves with their idiotic social media outbursts and with their refusal to work with the Biden transition team.
5. Hearing people who believe that Stacey Abrams won the GA governors election, who have been insisting for 4 years that Clinton won in 2016, and who've been shouting about election interference, all of a sudden change their tunes, is amusing.
6. While I think that Biden is a hack, I fail to see how two years of gridlock is a particularly bad thing at this point. The likelihood of any SCOTUS members leaving is slim, and I have no problem with a GOP led senate engaging in the same tactics that the DFL led house has been engaging on for the last 4 years.
7. I firmly believe that it is long past time for a complete overhaul of how we vote in national elections, and in how the results of national elections are reported by the news media. I thin that the single most important aspect of national elections should be the integrity of the process and of the results. It seems like this notion shouldn't be a partisan issue, but I suspect it will be.
8. Some thoughts on reforms.
a. Establish a national holiday (or a two day national holiday) for voting.
b. Require paper ballots.
c. Eliminate the random mail in ballots, encourage people to vote in person.
d. Adopt a system to pre-count absentee, military, and other ballots, segregate them securely until election day, then feed them through the counting machines on election day.
e. Adopt some means to eliminate the various networks from "calling" states until a set period of time after the polls close. In a perfect world, the secretary of state of each state would "call" the election instead of the media.
f. Acknowledge the fact that certain people who live in the US are ineligible to vote, and that if those people vote that their ballots should not be counted.
I'm sure that there are some other things that I've missed, and that could be tweaked, but this election was a cluster #$%& and anyone who is honest should be able to acknowledge that.
The bottom line is that I'm not someone who puts my faith in governments or presidents. I'm generally convinced that our founders set up a system that can stand 4 or 8 years of just about anything, so I just don't get that invested in the outcome of any one election.
I suspect that the next 4 years are going to move between shit show and gridlock, and that the Biden lovers are going to spend a lot of time trying to explain away the shit show aspects of his administration. While patting themselves on the back for the first POC VP, and hoping that the fact that they are the same people who didn't support her for POTUS doesn't get brought up.
74 comments:
So, you have a crazy president who is claiming - with NO proof and contrary to the facts - that he "won the election."
You have a crazy president who is claiming - with no proof and contrary to the facts - that "they" are trying to "steal the election" by supposed and unproven massive voter/election fraud.
You have a president who is intent on stirring up doubt about our election process with his crazy suggestions of voter fraud... he is throwing gasoline around and lighting matches.
AND YET, when you reflect on the election results (following your "usual practice of waiting for more information...") you entirely IGNORE this dangerous and crazy man's dangerous and crazy actions in lieu of whatever all THAT was... indeed, you play into his crazy with your at least insinuations that mail in ballots may not be trustworthy....
What is wrong with today's "conservatives" (hardly conservative, by traditional understandings) that they are ignoring all the crazy and giving a pass to an ACTUAL attempt to defraud the American people and undermine our free Republic?
You're swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat, man. Speak out. Save yourself and what used to be the good name of conservatism and white evangelicals.
Dan,
Your obsession with hatred for Trump is becoming pathological. I suspect that you’re simply choosing to ignore the reality that Trump is POTUS until January 20, 2021. This notion that he’s not, is simply insane. I quite clearly criticized his social media responses, while acknowledging that he’s done nothing illegal in pursuing the remedies available to him.
I find it interesting that you’ve chosen to frame patience and a desire to have as much information as possible before reaching a conclusion as a negative trait. That you seemingly prize rushing to conclusions based on prejudices as a more reasonable way to live.
Yes, I am primarily looking toward the future in this post, while acknowledging that it’s appropriate to allow scrutiny of election results. I suspect that had the results gone the other way, that you would sound much like the Russia idiots, in fact much like Trump.
Jesus saves, not me.
Back in 2016 Dan, as a way to excuse Clinton's problems with lying, said something to the effect of, "All politicians lie, you just have to accept (tolerate, ignore, excuse) a certain amount of lying in the politicians you support.". If one applies that idea to election security, then it becomes acceptable to tolerate dome degree of election irregularities as long as your person wins. While I acknowledge that it's probably not possible to eliminate 100% of election irregularities, I don't think that we should use that as an excuse to ignore those that exist.
"mail in ballots may not be trustworthy...."
Once I heard a gentleman on a national radio show talking about how he "coerced" his aged mother into voting for a party she'd never voted for in her life, I realized that these massive, random, mail in ballots are more open to manipulation than other methods. I am suggesting that we can do better then mass mailing unrequested ballots out to untrustworthy addresses. It's a completely rational concern.
Dan's been a great example of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand over these claims of voter/election fraud. Worse, he insists everyone join him. He demands evidence as if there isn't tons of it. In the very meantime, he rejected the real questions:
1. Is there enough evidence to prove Trump actually came out ahead?
2. Is there enough to compel non- certification and thus throw the election to Congress which will likely result in a second Trump term?
Dan dismisses all evidence one might present to him, because he's too wrapped up in his hatred for Trump... and America... while never once having opposed the years long attempt to convince the nation Trump was involved with colluding with Russia to win in 2016. Dan, instead, is totally down with "by any means neccessary", which in this case means EVERY means seems to have been employed to steal this election for socialism.
It should also be noted that prior to this election, many Dems were voicing concerns about the Dominion system. Given it's being used in so many states, it's not hard to imagine that each state has its own issues with election honesty as a result. But now, since it's their party that is benefiting (and it's never really any other way in this country), liars like Dan pretend Trump's concerns are unfounded. Yet again, even with media complicity working to squelch any hint of impropriety on the part of Democrats, there's still plenty of evidence to compel a complete investigation. If the Dans of the world had any shred of honesty, integrity or true Christian belief, to have the patience to let the process complete is a small price to pay. Only the guilty would seek to deny the right of the aggrieved to scrutinize. If not for the SCOTUS, Al Gore would still be counting votes in Florida.
Again, you are missing the point. What Trump is doing is dangerous. It's a deadly lie with dangerous potential consequences. And yet conservatives like you or just rolling over and letting him get away with it. You are participating in the con by not denouncing it. So shame on you for that.
"This notion that the media or other parties call elections in any sort of official sense seems problematic."
1. The media does not call the election.
2. The media reports the facts.
3. When the facts are made clear from the responsible parties in the states that one candidate has enough votes to win the election and the other candidate not cannot overcome that, they report those facts.
Those who try to portray the media is doing something irresponsible are, themselves, it was possible. It's reporting the facts. Get over it.
" it's a completely rational concern..."
No. Rational concerns are those that our database. There is no data to suggest why spread fraud happens especially with Mel and ballads. That is part of the Diabolical lie that Trump has been selling two idiots willing to believe a con man. Are you an idiot? Are you part of the calm yourself? That's the question. That's the rational concern.
Trump and his League of useful idiots are finished. We need to put an end to that chapter of utter corruption. If you aren't going to help put an end to the historically awful presidency, then get the hell out of the way because rational and responsible adults have work to do.
Let me try this. You barely complain about Trump in what you call his Twitter outbursts. Trump has made many stupidly and dangerously false claims. He falsely claimed that he won the election. That was a lie, a damned lie, and a dangerous lie.
Can you agree with that reality? Do you recognize that reality? He had no dated on which to base the false claims that he won. He knew he had no data to face that false claim upon. It was an overtly and stupidly false claim. Agreed? If so, say so. Call his damned lies out for what they are, damned diabolical lies.
Trump has also made the stupid Lee false claim to his dim-witted followers who are eating it up that they are trying to steal the election. He made this stupid Lee false claim with no data to support it. Because it was a stupid lie false claim. There is no plot to steal the election the claim is false and damnably false. Do you agree with that reality? If so, say so.
We need to come together as a nation, and the way that we're going to come together is for responsible conservatives to speak out and denounce the dangerous attempts to actually defraud our election and undermine our system.
It's time to take a stand. Which side are you on, boy?
1. Yet many people believe that the media does calm the election, because the media likes to give the impression that they do,
2. That’s cute and naive. It’s amazing how often facts change? Are you claiming that it’s an objective fact that there has been zero voting irregularities?
3. Yet, that point doesn’t come until the state’s officially certify the results, which they haven’t. Further, the calls made on election night are NOT based on official state results, they’re based on projections.
I’m curious who is is danger or who will die because Trump is availing himself of the legal remedies afforded to any POTUS candidate in close elections.
This sounds more like over dramatic fear mongering than anything else and just your prejudices run amok.
Your second comment was incoherent enough that I’m not going to waste time trying to decipher your unproofread voice to text ramblings.
Yes, you’ve spent the last 4 years telling us that we’re evil, horrible, racist, etc, and now you spew this fake unity bullshit. Why would I want to unify with people who’ve been vilifying and lying about me for years.
I’m taking a stand. I’m on the side of Truth, and election security.
Dan,
I’ve been critical of Trump’s lying for years, I see no reason to go apoplectic every time Trump says or does something I disagree with. For some reason you expect that your generic blatherings condemning violence get you a pass when you’re silent on leftist violence, but don’t treat others the way you expect to be treated.
Just like you, I don’t comment on everything, and when I do comment, I do it the way I choose.
But you stick with your double standards if it helps.
Craig... "2. That’s cute and naive. It’s amazing how often facts change? Are you claiming that it’s an objective fact that there has been zero voting irregularities?"
Are you two just as stupid as all hell or are you being deliberately and diabolically deceptive, trying to win points through stupidly false claims?
Read. Understand.
NO ONE IS SAYING THERE ARE ZERO VOTING IRREGULARITIES.
REPEAT IT AFTER ME, YOU STUPID LIARS:
NO ONE IS SAYING THERE ARE ZERO VOTING IRREGULARITIES.
Now, do you UNDERSTAND that very simple, basic fact? NO one is claiming there are ZERO voting irregularities. We KNOW it happens because Republicans have been caught several times doing it (and I'm sure it's happened with Democrats, too, I'm just not aware of it.
But no one is saying it never happens because of course it does. What we're saying is your "conservative" God-damned perverted con man president that your side defends like a dog in heat made a dangerously, stupidly set of false claims. He claimed he won.
That was false, stupidly false, dangerously false. Given that many idiots are STUPID enough to believe this most corrupt president in US history, he's undermining our free Republic. HE and those who repeat this stupidly false claim are the ones actually attempting to perpetuate election fraud, by undermining the actual results.
Then your deviant sick moron president made the false claims that "they" were trying to "steal" the election by perpetuating massive election fraud. THAT, TOO, IS A STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM. One that undermines our free Republic and the actual winner, or at least attempts to do this.
WE are responding NOT to the claim that "there have been zero voting irregularities." We are responding to HIS FALSE CLAIM that there was massive fraud in an attempt to steal the election.
THAT is the false claim that a full HALF of your conservative useful idiots believe. Will you unequivocally denounce that hell-spawned and traitorous attempt to defraud the election process?
Craig made this stupid-as-shit false claim... "I’m curious who is is danger or who will die because Trump is availing himself of the legal remedies afforded to any POTUS candidate in close elections."
No one is objecting to Trump availing himself of legal remedies.
REPEAT that, you stupid liar:
NO ONE IS OBJECTING TO TRUMP availing himself of legal remedies.
What we are objecting to is his evil false claims that he "won" the election and that "they" are trying to "steal the election." THAT is the problem.
Are you so soul sick that you don't understand this? What is wrong with you? Have you sold your soul to modern "conservatism" and to hell with honesty or attempting to understand what people are actually saying?
Read and understand: IF Trump had said, "Wow, that election in Georgia and Pennsylvania were close. I'd like to have a recount..." AND if the elections were actually close enough (by those states' established criteria) to merit a recount, then no problem, no foul.
But that isn't what happened.
Instead, he has been uttering false claim after false claim. And not even TRYING to justify his claims.
He lost. He clearly lost. It's over and yet he continues to fight NOT because there is a single God-damned bit of evidence to support it, but he does so to undermine the election.
Open your eyes. Open your mind. SEE what this man and his useful idiots are doing to undermine our nation and take a stand.
Save yourself. It's not too late. I believe in you. But salvation begins with acknowledging your wrong path and repenting.
Repent.
, I see no reason to go apoplectic every time Trump says or does something I disagree with.
So, you're cool with treason? You're cool that this utterly corrupt con man has a full HALF the GOP believing his lie that he won?
WHY is basic honesty NOT a reason to denounce such traitorous lies?
You pretend to be concerned about fraud but ignore it when it's actually happen.
THAT only serves to prop up this con man you say you are concerned about his "outbursts..." He's not a child and these are not outbursts. This is an attempt to undermine our nation.
Shame on you for not condemning it for what it is and pity on you if you don't even understand what is right in front of your face.
"The media reports facts."
That is the best demonstration of how indoctrinated Trabue is by the media. The media is known for being so very LEFTIST slanted to where everything is anti-conservatism. They continually get caught in lies and have to retract "news" items -- burying the retraction deep in their reports while the lies are headlines.
"The media reports facts." That's gotta be the most ridiculous claim I've read in a very long time.
"What Trump is doing is dangerous."
Leave it to Dan to suggest that promoting election integrity is dangerous. He's not wrong. Honest elections never work well for Democrats and socialists.
Even if Trump's efforts fail to result in a second term...a term he so richly deserves based on a first term that was far more beneficial for all Americans in ways that lefties like Dan can't even comprehend...they will, or should, lead to actual actions to ensure election integrity. There is all manner of fraud and irregularities being exposed by Trump's legitimate legal actions. Shame on all of us if it doesn't result in fixing that which ails us.
"And yet conservatives like you or just rolling over and letting him get away with it."
Conservatives look at this election and see how well the GOP did in all levels of state and federal voting EXCEPT the president and wonder how that can possibly be. Conservatives wonder how in the world battleground states can...almost in unison...end vote counting with Trump handily in the lead and then in the wee hours of the night resume counting to find that Biden jumps out in front. That would be EVERY ONE OF THE STATES THAT SUSPENDED VOTE COUNTING. Only a lying fake Christian progressive like Dan would ignore that or pretend it doesn't have even the slightest appearance of impropriety. Conservatives accept that it is possible the most abnormal things can indeed happen, but as they are abnormal (and these two examples are ONLY two examples), they are worthy of scrutiny to ensure the elections in those state were on the up and up.
What's most astonishing is how those hacks on the left (like Dan) are clearly no more confident the election was honest that they are unwilling to take a few weeks to look at all the things the Trump legal team has collected to make the case the election was horribly flawed as it appears to half the nation to be. If Dan is the honest person is laughingly tries to portray himself to be, these efforts by Trump will not change a thing.
"1. The media does not call the election.
2. The media reports the facts."
Doug Ducey disagreed. He had tons of votes uncounted when Fox called Arizona for Biden. At the same time, states that were overwhelmingly for Trump were not projected by any lefty media...which increasingly includes Fox...were not called even with high percentages of all precincts having reported. Dan lies about the integrity of the media, too.
"We need to put an end to that chapter of utter corruption."
What corruption? You've been saying this for four years. When will you identify this "utter corruption"? Was it that corrupt peace agreement in the Middle East? Was it that corrupt fiscal policy that led to the lowest unemployment rate since the 1960s? Was it totally corrupt lack of war? Was it the insanely corrupt releasing of about 50 Americans unjustly held by foreign governments? Was it that wacky corrupt protections of VA whistle blowers and better conditions for VA patients? Was it the incredibly corrupt Steel dossier....uh...sorry...that was Democratic corruption. Was it that corrupt attack on the press? Wait...that was Obama. What corruption exactly?
"If you aren't going to help put an end to the historically awful presidency, then get the hell out of the way because rational and responsible adults have work to do."
The lies never stop with Dan. The irony is that he considers Trump a horrible liar yet can't seem to answer the challenge I've put to him and others for the last four years. He totally ignores the lies of Obama and the incredibly stupid and self-serving lies Biden's told in his 47 years of lying that he's a public servant.
"You barely complain about Trump in what you call his Twitter outbursts."
Honest people are a mix of those annoyed by his Tweets and those who are amused because of how easily lefty asshats lose their minds over them. It's great sport.
"Trump has made many stupidly and dangerously false claims. He falsely claimed that he won the election. That was a lie, a damned lie, and a dangerous lie."
I think you're confusing Trump with Stacey Abrams who still thinks she's governor of Georgia. As I recall, Trump spoke of election fraud and as far as he was concerned, he won. If one believes foul play has occurred in an election, it is not at all unreasonable or "dangerous" to suspect that one actually won and one's opponent didn't. A damned lie looks more like this, "I Dan Trabue am a Christian".
"Can you agree with that reality? Do you recognize that reality?"
You've proven yourself incapable of grasping reality. Your petulant, pants-wetting at the mere mention of Trump's name indicates severe derangement and delusion.
"He had no dated on which to base the false claims that he won."
There's been a plethora of reports alleging all manner of voter/election irregularity. THAT is the reality. The question is still whether or not there was enough to constitute a stolen election. That has yet to be determined. In the meantime, you prefer to insist that there's no data. You're a liar and there's really no doubt about that.
"There is no data to suggest why spread fraud happens especially with Mel and ballads (sick--no, that's not a typo. Dan's freakin' sick)."
Here, Dan relies on his Stanford study on mail-in voting in the state of Washington. It fails to support his desperate contention, because what Washington's done to ensure election integrity is not duplicated by the mail-in debacle perpetrated on the premise that Covid will kill millions who show up to the polls to vote in person...a lie that shamefully Republicans accepted as an actual possibility. There was no true effort to do it right. There was no time to purge the voter rolls of those who no longer belong on them and all mail-in ballots were simply sent out based on outdated voter rolls. So Dan's party lied in promoting this fraud, Republicans were too spineless to oppose it, and no mature, honest citizen could have confidence in the process.
"We need to come together as a nation..."
That's funny. Dems/lefties do all they can to divide, and now they pretend to care about coming together. The egregious hypocrisy is not the least bit surprising.
"...and the way that we're going to come together is for responsible conservatives to speak out and denounce the dangerous attempts to actually defraud our election and undermine our system."
This is EXACTLY what's happening now with the scrutiny demanded of this election. People like you aren't responsible or you'd be on board, with no concern for who wins, but that whomever does has won honestly. We know what side YOU'RE on, girl.
"...trying to win points through stupidly false claims? NO ONE IS SAYING THERE ARE ZERO VOTING IRREGULARITIES. REPEAT IT AFTER ME, YOU STUPID LIARS: NO ONE IS SAYING THERE ARE ZERO VOTING IRREGULARITIES."
Clearly you have problems distinguishing between a question and a claim. Either that, or you think that this sort of bullshit anger over a false characterization scores you some cheap points.
"Now, do you UNDERSTAND that very simple, basic fact?"
If you mean, did you answer the question I asked, then yes.
But since you grant that election irregularities exist, then surely you shouldn't have a problem with determining the extent of those irregularities in this election.
"Are you so soul sick that you don't understand this? What is wrong with you?"
No. You clearly and directly claimed that people were in "danger" and that people could "die" because of Trump's actions. So far, I fail to see how Trump claiming that he won puts anyone in danger, certainly not at risk of death.
"Have you sold your soul to modern "conservatism" and to hell with honesty or attempting to understand what people are actually saying?"
No, quite the contrary. But thank you for implying something that is both false and slanderous.
It appears that your anger isn't about Trump's actions (or the actions of the states), it's soely about the fact that you don't like his choice of words. You insist that Trump has lost, yet that claim is factually not true at this current time. The election outcome is not currently official, do you understand so little about our election system as to be unaware of that simple fact. The only entities who have "called" the election currently are the media, the states haven't yet. But, your false claims get a pass apparently.
"Save yourself. It's not too late. I believe in you. But salvation begins with acknowledging your wrong path and repenting. Repent."
1. I can't save myself, only Jesus can save me.
2. Salvation doesn't come through politics or agreeing with you.
3. You talking about repentance is a joke.
4. Nice bit of sacrilegious crap.
"So, you're cool with treason?"
No, please point out what specifically has happened that constitutes treason?
"You're cool that this utterly corrupt con man has a full HALF the GOP believing his lie that he won?"
No, you can tell that I'm not because of what I've said.
"WHY is basic honesty NOT a reason to denounce such traitorous lies?"
Let's start with the fact that you haven't even attempted to demonstrate (let alone prove) treason. Then let's move on to the hypocrisy of you lying, allowing your groupie to lie, and your protection and sanction of his lies. Then let's look at the fact that you frequently fail to denounce lies, violence, and multiple other things when folx on your side of the aisle engage in them. Why should I be held to a higher standard than you hold yourself to? Finally, my entire post is based on trying to determine the actual truth of the matter. You simply asserting things doesn't prove their truth. I do support the actions of the Trump campaign(and the various states) in searching for the truth of the allegations. I, as I've said, don't support Trump and his comments on the process. I suspect that distinction is a bit too subtle for you.
Shame on you for lying. I've consistently been condemning these sorts of comments, outbursts, and tantrums since before the 2016 election.
Maybe you should acknowledge, apologize for, and repent of your own lies, before you demand things of others that you won't do.
Glenn,
The notion that the news media limits themselves to the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" that I was taught in reporting 101 in the 80's is a naive and pollynnaish view that ignores the changes in the media in the past 30 years. Like many things, it's easier for some to cling to an idealized, rose colored, view of the past while pretending that nothing has changed.
Y'all can pretend that the media does not report facts, but facts are facts. The media does, in fact, report facts. That is an observable fact. It is an objectively observable fact.
Claims that the media does not report fact is, itself, not a fact. Stop the lies. Stop the attacks against your fellow citizens, your neighbors.
Whatever happened to the basic human decency, let alone Christian morality? Do y'all see how pathetically you're painting yourselves?
The objective observable fact is that y'all cannot support the claim that the media does not report facts when it happens every day.
What I believe y'all are trying to get at is that some of the media are too biased in a liberal manner for your taste. That's fine. You can say that with some reason and not sound like fools or Liars. Some of the media, no, all in the media are by us. Some are biased in a more conservative Manner and summer biased in the more Progressive manner, but being humans, all people in the media are biased. That is not a fatal flaw of media, anymore then conservatives being biased is a problem in and of itself.
But there's a difference between having varying degrees of bias which is a human condition and saying that the media does not report facts. The first is a reasonable opinion. The second is a God damned lie.
Glenn, repent of that laugh. Admit you made a mistake and made a stupidly false claim. Admit it. Grow up, act like a decent human being and admit this simple stupid mistake you made. Repent. In the name of Jesus Christ your lord, repent
Craig... "Like many things, it's easier for some to cling to an idealized, rose colored, view of the past while pretending that nothing has changed."
Just like you're blinded by your allegiance to Trump conservatism, you're blinded about your views on the media. Speaking of having a rosy pollyannish view... the media has always been biased and always will be biased, being composed of human beings. And the media back in the good old days, as you might call them, did not limit themselves to just the facts, there was plenty of editorial ism and opinions thrown in. Are you not aware of this?
The facts are that the media back then reported the facts with some bias. And the media today reports the facts with some bias. Nothing has changed in that regards.
In a lot of ways, the media is more balanced today that it used to be. I am unaware of any data or research that shows mainstream media has a larger problem reporting facts now than they did back then.
What IS different is there a bunch of para news organizations out there, especially in the conservative world, that act like they are reporting news but not bound to any journalistic integrity. The Alex Jones's and breitbart's of the world. And these non-news newsgroups the liberal side, as well.
Dan,
I don't think that anyone is claiming that the media reports zero facts. What I think is more correct is that the media is selective about the facts they report, and reports them is a way that slants the stories. I think that acknowledging the reality that the media has moved beyond strictly reporting the 5 W's/H is just that, acknowledging reality. If anything, acknowledging this reality allows those of us interested in the truth, to assess what we see in the media with a degree of healthy skepticism and to search for multiple outlets. Acknowledging this reality, isn't a bad thing, it's just reality.
"Whatever happened to the basic human decency, let alone Christian morality?"
This is hilarious. You can't provide an objective definition of "basic human decency" or "morality, and you you deny the existence of an objective "Christian morality", yet you appeal to them when it's convenient. FYI, disagreeing with you on the trustworthiness of the news media is hardly immoral by any standard.
"Do y'all see how pathetically you're painting yourselves?"
Not nearly as pathetically as you're painting yourself.
"The objective observable fact is that y'all cannot support the claim that the media does not report facts when it happens every day."
Of course, now the semantic nitpicking comes out. I'll note a few problems with your claim.
1. As Glenn accurately points out, the media regularly has to retract or change the stories they report because they didn't get the "facts" correct.
2. Are you equating facts and Truth?
3. As Glenn's comment makes clear, your claim that "the claim that the media does not report facts" is not true, factual, or accurate.
4. If you're claim that "The media reports facts" is simply to claim that some of what is reported by the media consists of "facts", then it's a claim so vague and broad as to be meaningless. If your claim is that the media exclusively reports facts, then you'd have to prove that claim. If your claim is that the media exclusively reports facts, and that those facts are also True, then you've got more to prove.
5. To fail to acknowledge that the media slants, twists, and chooses which facts they report, is to deny reality.
"Some of the media...", I think the factual number is something like 89%, so it would be more factual to have said "the majority" or the "vast majority".
Stop the "repent" bullshit. It just makes you sound sanctimonious and hypocritical given the number of lies you tell, and your refusal to hold yourself and your groupie to the standards you try to hold others to.
It's interesting that someone who insists that there are "many truths", is so obsessed with telling others that they're lying.
"Just like you're blinded by your allegiance to Trump conservatism, you're blinded about your views on the media."
Please prove this claim, or apologize and retract it.
"Speaking of having a rosy pollyannish view... the media has always been biased and always will be biased, being composed of human beings."
I've gone into great detail about this multiple times. The difference between print media, broadcast media, and cable/online media and the standards that apply to each. But if you choose to ignore reality and facts, it's not my fault.
"And the media back in the good old days, as you might call them, did not limit themselves to just the facts, there was plenty of editorial ism and opinions thrown in. Are you not aware of this?"
Yes, it was called editorials. I'm not stupid. I realize that this has always gone on to some degree, and that the type of media determines the degree to which this practice is acceptable is a major factor. You know how much I appreciate your condescension and generalizations.
"The facts are that the media back then reported the facts with some bias. And the media today reports the facts with some bias. Nothing has changed in that regards."
Really? You are claiming that the amount of bias exhibited by "the media" hasn't changed one bit in the past 30 years? Please prove this claim, immediately.
"In a lot of ways, the media is more balanced today that it used to be."
Prove this claim, immediately.
"I am unaware of any data or research that shows mainstream media has a larger problem reporting facts now than they did back then."
Which, of course, has absolutely zero value in terms of proof. It's your biased opinion, nothing more.
"What IS different is there a bunch of para news organizations out there, especially in the conservative world, that act like they are reporting news but not bound to any journalistic integrity. The Alex Jones's and breitbart's of the world. And these non-news newsgroups the liberal side, as well."
1. Of course, everyone knows the bias of those groups and can factor that into their analysis.
2. This attempt to lump everything into this category of "the media", is both foolish and unhelpful. It fails to acknowledge that different levels of expectations of the different forms of media.
3. This is why I expect less overt bias from ABC/CBS/NBC than I do from online or cable sources.
While you've not defined some of the issues around facts that I raised earlier, I'll point out the reality that the Brietbart's and Jones' of the world do "report facts". You may not think that report a high enough percentage of the facts, or they they selectively report facts, but the reality is that they do "report facts" and the same criticisms can be made of CNN, CNBC, etc.
I suspect that's why you haven't clarified what you mean by "report facts".
I just pulled the article below from Brietbart's website. I copied it in it's entirety. On a quick scan, it appears that there are, in fact, facts being reported. Even when they quote P-BO's opinions, they do so acknowledging that the quotes are factual. So, clearly, your implication that Brietbart doesn't report facts, is not factual. The reality is that this story contains no editorializing and sticks to a straightforward version of the actual facts.
"During an hour-long special to promote his recently released book “A Promised Land,” former President Barack Obama dismissed suggestions that anything inappropriate had taken place in the presidential election earlier this month.
He called those allegations “bald assertions” and took a jab at his successor, President Donald Trump.
“Look, Joe Biden’s going to be the next president of the United States,” he said. “Kamala Harris will be the next vice president. I have been troubled like I think every American, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat or Independent, should be troubled, when you start having attempts to block, negate, overturn the people’s vote when there’s no actual evidence that there was anything illegal or fraudulent taking place.”
“These are just bald assertions,” Obama continued. “They’ve been repeatedly rejected by the courts. And I think I’m less surprised by Donald Trump doing this. You know, he has shown only a flimsy relationship to the truth. I’m more troubled that you’re seeing a lot of Republican officials go along with it, not because they actually believe it, but because they feel intimidated by it, and the degree to which you’ve seen some news outlets that cater to the right and the conservative viewpoint somehow try to prop up these bogus claims.”
Craig... " What I think is more correct is that the media is selective about the facts they report, and reports them is a way that slants the stories. I think that acknowledging the reality that the media has moved beyond strictly reporting the 5 W's/H is just that, acknowledging reality."
1. Glenn SAID... ""The media reports facts." That's gotta be the most ridiculous claim I've read in a very long time."
This is an attack on the media by suggesting they don't normally report facts. It is, of course, primarily what they do, in the real world.
But setting that aside...
2. Your claim that "the media has moved beyond strictly reporting..." makes me wonder if you're entirely unfamiliar with the reality of the history of journalism.
3. You KNOW for most of the history of journalism, the "news" was very biased and partisan... you know that is the reality, correct?
4. Do you know that this has always been true, to varying degrees, depending on the time and the organization?
5. Do you know that this was true during what I'm guessing you're thinking of the "golden years" between the 1940s to 1960s? That back then, the media was biased and presented the news in a way that moved beyond strictly reporting? That the US media often, indeed, acted as a cheeerleader for US politics, wars and politicians?
You're aware of all this, right?
6. The reality is that the media has always had biases as it is run by imperfect, biased human beings. For much of the last 100 years (and our earlier lives) the media reported with a more conservative bias, but the bias was there. I'm thinking what YOU and Glenn and your comrades are thinking is that you wish it were back to being biased in YOUR favor, not that the bias was gone. You just feel that there's too much liberal bias now and wish it were more conservative or closer to neutral?
I think what has happened (war on Christmas, gays taking over, uppity black and other conservative complaints over the last 40-50 years) is that you all are losing your predominant place in society and you don't like it when you're not the main authorities.
Do you think that's fair?
That the media has swung from having a more traditional/conservative bias and balanced out a bit with more liberal bias and you want it back the way it was?
That's how it seems from here.
Craig... ". As Glenn accurately points out, the media regularly has to retract or change the stories they report because they didn't get the "facts" correct."
Of course. As I have been quite clear about: The media has always been imperfect. Sometimes non-facts get reported or facts are not accurately portrayed. That has always been the case.
Agreed?
Now, what you two are trying to insinuate is that somehow, it's gotten worse lately (however long ago you two think it got worse). Some of the objective questions a reporter would ask are:
A. IS there ANY data to support a claim that the media "often" misreports facts?
B. You claim "regularly..." they have to retract? How often?
C. Is that more true for Fox News than, say, NPR? (I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that Fox misreports facts more frequently than NPR)?
D. Is that more or less frequently than, say, 25 years ago? 50 years ago?
E. Do you have ANY data to support the suggestion that the media makes more factual errors now?
You want to make these attacks on the media and you say you have a journalism background (as do I)? Then act like it. Do some reporting. Answer these very reasonable questions.
Here are some other reasonable questions:
IF you did some research and found that the media was more reliable today than in 1960, would you be surprised? (I wouldn't).
Would you be more determined to defend the mainstream media against conservative attacks (like Glenn and you are doing right now), or would you keep quiet?
Would you concede that you don't have the data to support a claim that the media is less reliable than in 1960? (I would... I haven't researched it greatly and couldn't tell you authoritatively that the media is more or less reliable now than then).
If you are honest enough to concede that you don't have the data to support the charge that the media is less reliable or factual now than then, do you think it's fair that you make these sorts of charges without clarifying that you don't know that it's worse now?
Would you be surprised at all to find that Fox News is significantly less reliable/more likely to misreport facts than NPR or BBC? Really?? Come on, you know they're not, right?
Craig... " So, clearly, your implication that Brietbart doesn't report facts, is not factual."
As someone trained in journalism, you should know that misrepresenting what I said, finding an "implication" that I didn't make is not great or unbiased journalism, right?
What I said is that Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc are not grounded in journalistic ethics/best practices. And they are not.
My quote: "in the conservative world, that act like they are reporting news but not bound to any journalistic integrity. The Alex Jones's and breitbart's of the world."
Do you disagree with what I actually said?
Reporting a half fact is not reporting with a nod towards the journalistic integrity or ethics that I learned in "the liberal college system" of the 1990s.
1. The more accurate way to put that would be that Glenn quote you saying that "The media reports facts.". It's your words, your claim, your onus to prove your claim.
2. I'm well aware of the history of journalism, I actually completed my major from an accredited, 4 year university and everything. I even remember Intro to journalism from my freshman year when I learned it.
3. I even know that to lump all forms of media/journalism together as the "news" and imply that they all had/have the same expectations regarding showing bias is ether an ignorance of history, or an intentional attempt to obfuscate the issues.
4. Yes, I've said so many times.
5. First, then you've guessed wrong as usual. There is a claim implicit in your absurd question, please prove your claim or retract it. Again, your lumping of all different types of media together, is obfuscation. Your implied assertion that "the media" was monolithic is this alleged "cheer leading" is absurd. Both absurd, and unproven.
"You're aware of all this, right?"
I'm aware that you've made one more, in a long line, or claims that you've not proven nor have you even offered any thing beyond your words in even the most superficial attempt at proof.
6. Again, your reference to this non existent "monolithic" media is so broad and vague as to mean nothing. The reality is that by today's standards the country was "more conservative" than in 2020 and it's idiotic to retroactively apply your 2020 opinions to 1950.
"Do you think that's fair?"
Nothing you do or say is fair. Especially when you just "guess",make shit up, and try to pass off your fantasies as other people's thoughts. You get annoyed when we take your words literally, or follow them to their logical conclusion, yet have no compunction about flaunting your hypocrisy and double standards when you try to attribute these flights of fancy to us.
"That the media has swung from having a more traditional/conservative bias and balanced out a bit with more liberal bias and you want it back the way it was?"
Not at all.
"That's how it seems from here."
that's because you put too much stock in how things seem through your biases and prejudices, rather than in reality.
The simple fact that you can't acknowledge the reality that "the media" isn't the monolithic entity you'd like to believe, and that different types of media have different standards and expectations, says enough.
"As someone trained in journalism, you should know that misrepresenting what I said, finding an "implication" that I didn't make is not great or unbiased journalism, right?"
Well, other than the reality that I'm not, and have never claimed to be an unbiased journalist, therefore me pointing out my opinion isn't really anything but a diversion by you to avoid proving your plethora of fact claims.
"What I said is that Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc are not grounded in journalistic ethics/best practices. And they are not. My quote: "in the conservative world, that act like they are reporting news but not bound to any journalistic integrity. The Alex Jones's and breitbart's of the world." Do you disagree with what I actually said?"
You haven't provided enough proof to support your claim. I agree that you said what you said, but that doesn't make what you said fact. It's also interesting that you want to hold "para news" sources to the same standards of "news" sources. The reality is that these internet only organizations are not held to the same standards as broadcast news outlets. Of course, everyone knows this and evaluates these sources accordingly.
"Reporting a half fact is not reporting with a nod towards the journalistic integrity or ethics that I learned in "the liberal college system" of the 1990s."
That's correct, unfortunately that applies just as much (if not more) to the legacy news media. If only you held them to the same standards you expect of Brietbart.
"Agreed?"
That the "media" (still treating this as broad and monolithic as possible), sometimes is forced to retract stories after those stories are pointed out to be false, yes. That the media does it entirely voluntarily or with as much gusto as the original false story, no.
"Now, what you two are trying to insinuate is that somehow, it's gotten worse lately (however long ago you two think it got worse). Some of the objective questions a reporter would ask are:"
Given your total lack of answering questions or proving your claims (when asked) in this thread, the fact that you expect others to live up to a standard that you don't and that you think that you should be treated like a journalist is simultaneously, cute, naive, absurd, disgusting, and bizarre.
"A. IS there ANY data to support a claim that the media "often" misreports facts?"
I can think of one example. The media to this very day reports that Michael Brown said "Hands up, don't shoot.", even when this narrative has been proven false. So, that's one (multiplied by the number of times it's repeated) data point. Now, a real reporter would have done their research prior to the interview and would be familiar with what is out there.
"B. You claim "regularly..." they have to retract? How often?"
I'd suggest that more that 12 times per year would constitute "regularly", but you'd just get into a semantic argument, so it's pointless.
"C. Is that more true for Fox News than, say, NPR? (I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that Fox misreports facts more frequently than NPR)?"
Apples and oranges in terms of expectations between a cable outlet, and a broadcaster. The better question is how many is too many, and why are they getting it wrong? If you believe this claim so strongly, then prove it.
"D. Is that more or less frequently than, say, 25 years ago? 50 years ago?"
It's certainly more frequent now because there are more outlets, and the practice of simply re printing under an "ABC news reports..." without independently checking the accuracy of the story means that false stories get re reported vastly more than in the past. It's a matter of laziness to re post or re report a story from another news organization without independently checking the accuracy of the story. This is exacerbated by the presence of individual reporters on social media who pass things along on their social channels without even running them past their vetting process. This happens literally monthly on Twitter. In short, the huge expansion of outlets, and the lazy practice or simply re printing other organization's stories makes it overwhelmingly likely.
"E. Do you have ANY data to support the suggestion that the media makes more factual errors now?"
Again, the vast expansion of the media virtually guarantees this to be the case. As to data, I'm not going to do your research for you, and I'm not going to let you try to hold me to a standard you won't hold yourself to.
I'm not "making attacks" and I'm not claiming to be a reporter. I'm expressing my opinions.
Here are some other reasonable questions: (Oh goodie. You won't answer questions or prove your claims, but expect others to.)
"IF you did some research and found that the media was more reliable today than in 1960, would you be surprised? (I wouldn't)."
Would I be surprised if it is possible to cherry pick something to prove your presumption, no. Would I be surprised if someone applied the same standards across all types of media, yes. It's also an apples to musk ox comparison.
"Would you be more determined to defend the mainstream media against conservative attacks (like Glenn and you are doing right now), or would you keep quiet?"
What an absurd question, combined with moving the goal posts. The fact that you've substituted "mainstream media" for "the media" raises questions about your intent. The fact that you want to impose on me some mythical duty to defend the "mainstream media" is some overarching, blanket sense is nonsensical. If someone or some outlet does something wrong, I'm not going to defend it or them period. If they do their job, then they shouldn't need me to defend them.
Would you concede that you don't have the data to support a claim that the media is less reliable than in 1960? (I would... I haven't researched it greatly and couldn't tell you authoritatively that the media is more or less reliable now than then).
"If you are honest enough to concede that you don't have the data to support the charge that the media is less reliable or factual now than then, do you think it's fair that you make these sorts of charges without clarifying that you don't know that it's worse now?"
That I don't have the data at my fingertips doesn't mean that the data doesn't exist. that you don't provide data to prove your claims, while demanding that others do to support their opinions, is simply a double standard.
"Would you be surprised at all to find that Fox News is significantly less reliable/more likely to misreport facts than NPR or BBC? Really?? Come on, you know they're not, right?"
Would you be surprised to find out that asking the same question over and over again is an absurd and pointless exercise. No, I believe that all of these news outlets are staffed by imperfect, fallible, humans who are equally likely to misreport. But again, it's an apples to dinosaurs comparison.
https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/American-Views-2020-Trust-Media-and-Democracy.pdf
https://morningconsult.com/2020/04/22/media-credibility-cable-news-poll/
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2017/not-fake-news-just-plain-wrong-top-media-corrections-of-2017/
Great links, Craig! I'm going to have to save those.
"Here's a helpful opinion piece from David Goldberg who makes the case that now is the golden age of journalism, with the distinction that those who are at the top of their game are doing journalism better than ever."
Interesting hunch. I'd agree that given the resources available that it stands to reason that the top 1% of journalists are doing better than ever. But with all of your vague, broad general references to "the media" we're not really talking abut the top 1%.
"There are, of course, more biased and flawed news groups (Fox News stands out, as does CNN, to a lesser degree) and, even worse, the fatally flawed quasi-"news" groups like Breitbart and Alex Jones or HuffPo, on the left. Goldberg... "As long as journalism is created by human beings, it cannot be totally free of bias. That’s precisely why the profession relies so heavily upon a code of ethics and its standards and practices; the tools that protect a journalist from his or her own biases impacting the final product. Just like misinformation, bias is rampant. But that’s a reason to seek out skilled journalists, not to avoid them — a reason to look to the front of the pack, not the most crowded spot. In fairness, I should note that institutional bias — including editorial decisions on which stories to cover, highlight, or hide — is another issue, but, for the most part, one that rests with corporate media entities and not journalists." "When we think we see bias from a responsible journalist, we may be assigning undue import to the missing elements of a first draft. But most of us are simply reacting to reporting we don’t like; reporting that looks too closely or critically at something we want to celebrate or defend. We forget that history has been impacted over and over by reporting we did not want to hear — about our military, our government, our courts, our clergy, our heroes, and our neighbors. There was a time we consumed these stories with a sense of duty. We occasionally recoiled. We asked questions when unclear, and pushed back with anger when we disagreed. We did not, however, denigrate the profession. We didn’t look at the truth and call it something else. We did not kneejerk toward a judgement of bias. We did not shout “fake news”." https://medium.com/@davidgoldberg_33537/the-golden-age-of-journalism-5281d1d512e"
Blah, blah, blah. Interesting bunch of assumptions that doesn't really address the issue of accuracy, just preference.
"So, ALLL of that to say, NO, you can't support your stupidly false claims and NO, you won't even try and NO, you don't give a damn about actual facts, you are just going to go with the partisan biases that tickles your delicate ears and you'll gladly pass on false news as long as it fits your conservative biases and agendas."
I guess on some level, it makes some bizarre sense that you open your screed about honesty in journalism with multiple falsehoods, misrepresentations, and bullshit. Of course, It just devalues anything else that follows.
"Got it. Look, coward, IF you actually studied journalism, then you would know that IF you want to claim that the media is more biased and less accurate/reliable, THEN you need to present your case."
Excellent second act. Throw out the ad hom/insult/personal attack, then follow it up with the implied (because you truly are cowardly) claim that I'm lying. Then you conclude with one more appeal to your double standard. You appear to be coming unhinged.
"No one is going to do that work for you and you can't say it's MY job to support your stupid-ass false claims."
Hell, you won;t support your own stupid-ass claims, I'd be a moron to ask you to support mine. Since I'm not a moron, I'm not asking you to do so.
"The thing is: Rational, data-oriented adults recognize your false claims for what they are. Ironically, good journalists recognize your false claims and vague attacks for what they are. Would that you would have learned a little something about journalistic integrity when you studied it. If this is deliberate evil on your part, shame on you. If it's ignorance, get help. Read, learn. Educate yourself and for the love of all that's holy, STOP making false claims, false allegations and vague false allegations IF you don't know it's true. Be an adult."
If all you have is more personal attacks, false claims, and lies, I see no reason to continue to address specifics. the fact that your response to my repeatedly pointing out your failure to prove your own claims, and to answer questions is personal attacks and bullshit, then I think I've learned something valuable.
"You little shit."
How mature and adult of you.
"The media DAILY, HOURLY, REGULARLY reports facts. They just do."
I addressed this problem with your claim earlier, the fact that you chose this sort of response, instead of dealing with my requests for clarification, is really all the answer I need,
"IF you want to make the claim that "the media" - by which you probably mean the media that you think of as too liberal, but probably not Fox News and maybe not even Breitbart - is wholly untrustworthy, then that's on YOU liars to support."
1. When you make these personal attacks, why not actually base them in reality. It would give you a tiny bit of credibility.
2. If you'd stop arguing against the straw men of what your prejudices and biases tell you we "probably" believe, it would show that you are living in the real world. But, you choose your own fantasy world.
"But you won't because you can't because the reality is that, by and large, the mainstream media reports facts fairly steadily and faithfully. WITHOUT A DOUBT, and as has always been true, they will report those facts with some biases - some to the left and some to the right - but they are reporting facts."
I continue to note the fact that you haven't addressed the fact/truth question from earlier, nor have you addressed the questions about facts from earlier. Since you won't be clear about what you mean, it's hard to respond. The fact that "the media" reports some "facts" regularly is such a low bar without the clarification I asked for earlier.
"You appeared to concede that earlier. Are you now withdrawing the claim? How about you make clear what exactly it IS that you're claiming?"
I appeared to concede what earlier? That the media reports facts, of course I did, it's an absurdly broad and vague statement that means literally everything and nothing at the same time. Trying to gain more information on what this means to you is why I keep returning to the questions you ignored earlier. You appear to be conflating the presence of facts in any given news story as more important than the existence of truth or the absence of opinion. But you won't clarify, so who knows.
"That the media reports facts only 50% of the time? 90% of the time, but 10% is intentionally misleading? Which media? Instead of making vague and unsupported charges, act like a reporter! Act like a responsible adult and be clear in what it is you're saying."
That's an excellent idea, you should definitely do what you demand of others. Start by answering the questions already asked and by proving the truth of the claims you've been asked to prove. Those are excellent questions, that you'd do well to answer. Again, if the mere presence of some facts is all that you need to consider "the media" trustworthy, just be specific and say so.
Usually, when you start demanding that I do things that I've asked you to do, it's a signal that you aren't going to answer/prove the questions/claims that have been identified, and that you are slipping further into double standard mode.
"They are ACTING as if they are a responsible news group and HALF (more?) of conservatives RELY upon such nonsense peddlars and liars as a real news group."
Interesting hunch. Perhaps you can provide the stats that show exactly how many of their stories are "nonsense" and what percentage are "lies".
"It's why we have half of conservatives believing - contrary to the facts - that Trump won the election."
Interesting correlation. Are you suggesting that we are in possession of 100% o the "facts" regarding the election? Are you seriously pretending that the same sorts of things don't exist on the left? What % of leftists still believe that the Steele Dossier (contrary to all the facts) is a credible piece of evidence? What about the major news outlets that still treat it as if it is?
"This is a serious problem and you're dismissing it as if it were nothing."
It must be serious as you've already claimed that this is resulting in "danger" and "loss of life" without actually proving either. But, to be accurate, I'm not suggesting in any way that accuracy in the media isn't a problem. Quite the opposite, I've written about the topic multiple times, and I believe that the highest responsibility of the media is to report the truth. That the tendency of the media to jump on a narrative and report the narrative as fact, immediately, with little regard for the truth, is a huge problem. Although, I'd suggest that it's primarily a problem for the media more than anyone else. With the incredible amount of information, from primary sources, available to anyone it's pretty easy to fact check the media. (I'm referring to media of any and all political persuasion, not the one sided approach you take) I've repeatedly written about the practice of using misleading or false headlines as a way to get clicks to the story, then to bury the information that contradicts the headline deep in the story covered with pop ups and dozens of page clicks as an excellent example of a way the media distorts stories.
"Or worse, insinuating that maybe you think they ARE legitimate and trustworthy news sources. Do you recognize the reality that, for instance, Breitbart and especially Alex Jones are dangerous rumor mills that trade in conspiracy theories and false/unsupported claims?"
Based on my example, you'd have a hard time proving this claim to be factually true, but please do so immediately. I firmly believe that even a blind pig finds and acorn every so often, so I would check any story from any of these para news orgs carefully before I believed it. But, is that dangerous in any real sense, not really.
"I am just amazed at how casually you take the unending lies and cons of the Trumps, Breitbarts and Joneses of the world, as if these levels of demagoguery are okay or even acceptable."
I am amazed that you have the balls to make this claim. The fact that you feel like you can just invent this sort of bullshit from thin air and pass it of as fact with absolutely zero actual proof tells me that your really don't value truth or facts highly when you are attacking your enemies. Of course, I do believe in free speech and freedom of the press, even when I don't agree with what's being said. Are you seriously suggesting that the government should silence Breitbart or Jones? That they should be prevented from putting their content out over the internet?
"They're not."
So are you now the arbiter of what's "acceptable" in a national sense? Do you think that certain purveyors of content should be prevented from presenting that content through whatever publicly available forum they can access? Of course, you can't prove this claim either.
"I'm guessing you're just too blind to see that, which explains your casual dismissal of Trump et al false claims as just Trump being Trump. Silly little tweets and whatnot."
That' your problem, you construct straw men based on your guesses, driven by your biases and prejudices, and argue against the straw men. You then crow and strut as if defeating your straw men is some sort of accomplishment. All the while leaving a plethora of unproven claims and unanswered questions in your wake.
So, this link... https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2017/not-fake-news-just-plain-wrong-top-media-corrections-of-2017/
Points to the reality that mistakes happen in the media and, oftentimes, they get fixed. That only supports the reality that the media is imperfect and always have been. It in no way supports Glenn's suggestion that the media doesn't or doesn't regularly or doesn't faithfully report facts.
So, thanks for supporting my argument.
And I like how Glenn salivates over the links, as if they somehow support his diabolically false claims and gossip. Hint, Glenn: They don't.
Glenn, since Craig won't step up and say clearly what he sounds like he's trying to insinuate (that the media is intentionally biased and deliberately reports false news and does so regularly and does so at a rate that is worse than at some vague point in the past, according to his rose-colored glasses), why don't you say clearly what exactly it is you're trying to charge the media with:
Are you saying that the media regularly deliberately lies/makes up false stories to wrongly injure conservative causes? Are you saying that the media is too biased (for your tastes) in a liberal direction, again, to your tastes? Are you joining with the pervert in chief and making the GOBSMACKINGLY STUPID false claim that the media is the "enemy of the people..."?
What is your specific complaint? Step up and be clear.
For my part, I would say that the data shows that Fox News is clearly leaning conservative and sometimes that results in them passing on fake news, even though I consider them a serious news group that at least tries to adhere to decent journalistic practices. Same for CNN on the left (although I don't think the data supports the suggestion that they do as poorly as Fox News).
I think that NPR and BBC, the Washington Post and New York Times are all doing great journalism and with a huge amount of journalistic integrity. Sure, they probably all lean slightly to the left and that shows in their reporting, but bias is just a human reality and I'm not faulting Fox News for being biased towards conservatism or these others towards liberal ideals. I just criticize them when they make mistakes, but generally, I respect the work they're doing as patriots working the front lines of freedom and truth (if imperfectly).
On the other hand, clearly non-journalistic sites like Breitbart, NewsMax, Alex Jones and OAN are all problematic in presenting themselves as serious news outlets while not adhering to basic journalistic integrity practices.
When any news source shows "Mixed" results on factual reporting, that's problematic. I'm less concerned that a news source leans left or right than I am about the Mixed result. As we see here with NewsMax...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax/
Or LOW as we see with OAN...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/
That's disturbing.
Glenn, do you know that journalism schools (at least legitimate ones) ALL teach classes on Journalistic Ethics and that there are rules and ideals put in place to try to minimize damage from naturally occurring biases?
True fact. If Facts matter to you.
"Points to the reality that mistakes happen in the media and, oftentimes, they get fixed. That only supports the reality that the media is imperfect and always have been. It in no way supports Glenn's suggestion that the media doesn't or doesn't regularly or doesn't faithfully report facts."
What's interesting is that your standard of acceptable accuracy is only that it's perfectly ok if the corrections don't get fixed always. Some vague "oftentimes" is quite enough for you. Of course, the fact that your reflexive position is that it's just a little "mistake" and that it's never intentional.
"So, thanks for supporting my argument."
When you say "Glenn's diabolically false claim.", you realize that the "claim" you attribute to Glenn was actually made by you, and that you've never actually proven your version of the claim to be true, don't you?
"Glenn, since Craig won't step up and say clearly what he sounds like he's trying to insinuate (that the media is intentionally biased and deliberately reports false news and does so regularly and does so at a rate that is worse than at some vague point in the past, according to his rose-colored glasses), why don't you say clearly what exactly it is you're trying to charge the media with:"
Passive aggressive much? I do so find it amusing when you refuse to clarify what you mean specifically, answer questions, or prove your claims, yet manage to demonize others for doing what you do regularly regardless of the truth of your accusations.
Your attempt to broad brush this vague, undefined, subjective "the media" then to draw and expect others to draw broad, universal conclusions is an ingenious way of obfuscating the reality that some people ( and organizations) in the media do engage in trafficking in falsehoods. That some are quick to jump on a story and report it to suit a narrative, sometimes continuing even when the facts prove them wrong. The fact that you deny this is simply as sensible as the child who covers their ears and yells to drown out something they don;t want to hear. The fact that you perceive this as so incredibly one sided and as a battle of (progressive) good v. (conservative) evil just highlights your biases and prejudices. It's, simply, the failure of this progressive obsession with cramming people into some collective group and judging the perceived actions of the group, rather that the actual actions of the individual.
The question shouldn't be "Is the media trustworthy?" it's too broad and amorphous. The question(s) should be more like "Did CNN (or Fox, etc), and the individual reporters and editors, accurately report the truth about event X? If they didn't, then were the forthright and upfront about admitting and correcting their mistakes, or did they continue to report the narrative as the truth?". I understand that that sort of investigation might entail acknowledging that your treasured news sources aren't as pure as you'd like to think (I don't idolize any news sources,and I treat them all with a does of healthy skepticism. I'm especially skeptical when I see a headline that says something that sounds too good to be true.), and rethinking your hunches. It's likely that you'll do that, so it's pointless to ask.
OK, whatever.
Craig... "Perhaps you can provide the stats that show exactly how many of their stories are "nonsense" and what percentage are "lies"."
For one thing, I look to media watchdog agencies to get their evaluations.
ABC News, Media Bias reports, has a HIGH rating in factual reporting and a center left bias. I'm fine with that.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/
OAN has a LOW rating in factual reporting and an extreme right bias. I'm not fine with that.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/
Also, when I watch a hack organization like OAN or Breitbart and regularly can only go a few paragraphs before I come across obvious false or obviously unsupported claims, and they are clearly portraying themselves as right wing zealots, that supports what Watchdog groups like Media Bias tells me.
And I read. I read respected journalists and what they have to say. I listen to assessments and I see warnings.
For rational people, it is not at all difficult to understand the seismic difference between OAN and NPR.
Do you disagree?
How do YOU assess a media group's reliability? Gut feeling?
"What I'm saying is the same thing that Goldberg is saying in that link I referenced: WE have the ability to distinguish between valid and honorable journalists and media (NPR, BBC, Wa Po... even Fox News, barely) and between the hacks (Breitbart, Jones, OAN, etc) and we should NOT look to the hacks as news sources or TREAT them like news sources. Because we are reasoning adult citizens able to do this. If we don't (and to the degree that a segment(s) of the population don't) distinguish between them, then we're asking for chaos and hell. If facts and media can't be trusted/agreed upon, then you just have half the nation (or whatever percentage refuses to distinguish between facts and opinion and false claims) making a commonwealth hard to pull together."
So, who is in charge of making these gullible idiot believe that "correct" news sources? Who gets to determine what the "correct" beliefs are? Are "the media" exempt from being held to a standard of truth? Who decides which "media" are the approved outlets, and which aren't?
do you realize that if you are serious about "WE have the ability to distinguish...", that that ability to choose guarantees that some will make a bad choice? Do you seriously want to prevent people from making their own choices, no matter what your opinions of those choices are?
FYI, I don't ask you questions because I'm trying to impute something to you, I ask because you are frequently vague and hint at things that you might not mean. I ask to get you to clarify, that's why it's so frustrating when you don't answer, and so annoying when you read into questions things that aren't there.
Look thousands (millions) of people choose to believe all sorts of stupid things, they believe that there was a second shooter, that Elvis is alive, that the world is flat, that the Holocaust was a Jewish invention, that Muhammad had a flying horse, that there is a free lunch, that something came from nothing, etc. That's what you get when you live in a relatively free society. Maybe instead of silencing the "news" outlets you don't approve of, we should just make them put some sort of a label on everything they produce and on themselves to show people who the untrustworthy ones really are.
Craig... "Do you realize that if you are serious about "WE have the ability to distinguish...", that that ability to choose guarantees that some will make a bad choice?
Yes.
"Do you seriously want to prevent people from making their own choices, no matter what your opinions of those choices are?"
No.
Lookit: People are free to make stupid choices. To believe a corrupt president. To listen to non-news "news" groups like OAN. BUT, for a republic to work, we need to operate both our RIGHTS and our RESPONSIBILITIES.
It is an idiots choice to believe a liar and a non-journalistic conspiracy theory site.
BUT, it is the responsible citizen's responsibility to not let conspiracy theories spread like wildfire, to not let lies be taken as facts.
AND, it is the special responsibility of the rational citizen in a group of gullible conspiracy theorists to speak out against what his In Group is believing.
The Glenn's and Marshal's of the world are not going to believe NPR and they're not going to believe Dan or Dan's preacher or a Democratic Senator when they tell them that Trump did NOT win the election and that there is NO evidence of widespread fraud.
BUT, they might be open to believing a fellow conservative who speaks out. Now, yes, they may just demonize them like they did with John McCain, Mitt Romney and other rational conservatives who called a spade a spade. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the rational conservatives to speak out against the conspiracies and lies coming from their own side.
Likewise, it was the responsibility especially of the rational Left to speak out against Obama when his administration was too harsh on immigrants or to call Clinton out for his support of drug laws that criminalized/over-penalized black people.
The difference is: The Democrats/Left have had NOTHING like the travesty of Trump and Alex Jones that gained any traction in the mainstream of liberalism/Democratic politics. Trump is an egregious anomaly in modern US politics. Which is why it's all the more important for you to 1. Recognize your special responsibility and 2. Speak out.
Will you?
Sorry, I missed this one: "Who gets to determine what the "correct" beliefs are?"
I'm not talking a single thing about "correct beliefs."
It's a simple fact that Trump did not win the election.
It's a simple fact that when Trump SAYS he won the election, it was a stupidly false claim.
It's a simple fact that when Trump said that "they" were trying to "steal" the election that he was just making an empty and false claim with no data to support it.
It's not about beliefs. Those news agencies that reported what Trump said and reported, "Trump said this without providing support and in spite of the reports from the official election offices, which are indicating that Biden has enough elections to win and that, even if a recount is done, Biden won sufficient votes that there is no likelihood that Trump will "come back" and win..." Those news agencies that reported that were reporting the facts.
If any groups were just repeating what Trump said and treating it as a serious allegation as if he had support for them are NOT reporting the news. They are passing on false and unsupported claims and giving them credence by not reporting the known facts.
It's not about beliefs. It's about facts. Regardless of one's beliefs, there is no factual data to support the claim that Trump won. None.
I don't ask you questions because I'm trying to impute something to you, I ask because you are frequently vague and hint at things that you might not mean.
The thing is, IF you have been reading my words over the years and IF you're not blinded by partisan distrust of the Other, THEN you can KNOW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that I do not think we liberals get to "decide" what media other people can and can't listen to. I've never said anything that suggests I'm opposed to free speech.
Likewise, OF COURSE you can know that I don't think the media (conservative liberal or otherwise) should be exempt from standards of Truth. SO MUCH of what I write is in defense of truth and opposition to false claims, there is no rational reason to conclude that maybe Dan thinks the media should be exempt from standards of Truth.
It's an impossible and irrational conclusion to reach.
Just like this: I have tried for years to get straight answers from you about slavery: If you always think slavery is wrong - the owning of one person by another person, if it's wrong. However, knowing you're not an overtly bad man (and I don't think you are), then I can't conclude that you DO think this, even when I can't get you to answer that question directly.
When one has eliminated the impossible (that Dan thinks the media doesn't have to be honest, that Dan thinks people can't listen to the media of their choice, that Craig would support slavery), then what remains - however improbable - is the answer.
That's how you should approach such questions. Seems to me.
Craig... "Look thousands (millions) of people choose to believe all sorts of stupid things, they believe that there was a second shooter, that Elvis is alive"
Yes, that is absolutely true.
It is also true that not every crazy belief is equal.
IF millions of people believe that Elvis is alive and living on the moon, no harm no foul. So what?
IF, on the other hand, Millions of gun-carrying conservatives believe that Trump won, that Democrats stole the election by massive voter fraud AND they also believe that the remedy for this injustice is civil war (and some of them DO feel that way, hopefully not millions), by taking to the streets with guns to "shoot the Democrats," "chop off their heads" and "take our country back" THEN that is a problem.
Agreed?
Are you seeing some conservatives say all those things?
I am.
Do you think you should speak out against such ideas, as dangerous and traitorous?
I do.
Do you think that Democrat/liberal Dan telling them the election was not stolen will matter to them?
I don't.
Do you think that if dozens, hundreds, hundreds of thousands of traditional conservative GOP types start denouncing such ideas as wrong, they might listen to you?
I do.
Which side are you on? Civility or civil war?
(and for the record, I don't think a civil war will happen. If nothing else, when those who believe the president when he says he won... when they take to the streets with their guns, what are they going to do? Start shooting randomly? I don't think so. Start killing their democrat neighbors? I don't think so. The idea of civil war sputters out under its own idiotic and evil weight, when it comes right down to it.
BUT, I do think the "militia boy" types, like the ones who plotted to kill Michigan's governor and government, those boys might go out and do harm.
If they do, will you think that some rational conservatives should have spoke out more forcefully, to make clear that isn't an option?
“Agreed?”
I see what you did there, you took a real situation and you compared it with a hypothetical (Structured as a straw man), and tried to suggest that you’re rigged hypothetical is the more likely scenario.
No. You say you are but can’t provide names and links.
No. Ideas and the expression of those ideas is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom.
Given your track record, inability to prove things, and your factual error, I don’t think anyone is going to listen to you about virtually anything. Of course, they probably won’t listen to me either.
No. These people you allege who are allegedly preparing for civil war aren’t going to listen to me either.
No. But it’s interesting that after four years of referring to all conservatives in all sorts of vile and vitriolic ways, you somehow think that this bullshit unity crap is going to play.
Well, the uncivil side has been the left for the past 4 years, and there is no civil war side either, so I’m n the side of Jesus, Truth, and election integrity.
What’ll be interesting is to see you continue to trot out this civil war boogeyman after the inauguration. Y’all are gonna ride this straw horse as far as y’all can, then keep beating it after you’ve ridden it into the ground?
How many buildings have been destroyed at protests organized by conservatives?
All that shit and you admit it’s a straw man. The idiots in MI are in jail, and your prejudices and stereotyping is kind of funny.
I think that in the unlikely event like your straw horse, that conservatives will be standing on the front lines to protect the innocent where the police y’all have gutted can’t cover things.
I planned on dealing with your other comments tomorrow from my computer, but this accidentally got approved.
Fortunately ,it’s easy to respond to.
On the one hand you mouth platitudes about allowing people to believe what they want, no matter how stupid. On the other hands you expect other people to do your work of making a convincing case. Crazy idea, push for Truth and don’t obsess over other people’s beliefs.
You're on the side of a Jesus of your own creation, made in your own cowardly delusional image. If you're just blinded by your fear and partisan sickness, then I'm sorry for your blindness. May your eyes be open.
But you've had the word spoken to you and you STILL close your eyes and stop up your ears and close your brain off to reason and human decency.
May God soften your hard, hard heart and don't you dare claim Jesus in your defense of lies and perversions and hatred. That's just sick.
"IS there ANY data to support a claim that the media "often" misreports facts?"
This is so very typical of Dan and his routine lying. It's a commonplace by him, wherein Dan pretends and issue hasn't already been addressed. One needn't go too far back in the archives to find where I've presented evidence of lefty media lies, distortions and omissions. I posted at least two or three links with tons of examples. Dan never made the slightest effort to prove there was any excuse for what was evidence of some combination of media lies and/or incompetence. Dan simply ignored it... and now pretend it was never presented... while demanding proof of it. Another example of Dan lying. And let's be crystal clear: Dan's not "wrong" or "mistaken" here. He's lying.
As regards sources like even Alex Jones, Dan likes to write them off out of hand, when a liar who pretends to have been a student of journalism, and therefore appreciates journalistic integrity and accuracy, would concern himself not with the obvious bias of a source, but would focus only on whether a story is factually reported, regardless of the source. But not Dan. He simply says, "it's Alex Jones, so we can dismiss it because he's biased and has made some wild claims." That's not journalism. That's not honesty or integrity. A real journalist doesn't say. "Show me the proof of your claim." A real journalist takes it upon himself to prove it disprove a claim. That's not the media Dan defends as honorable, professional and worthy of respect.
Craig, You're not recommending a total elimination of mail-in voting, are you? We here in Arizona have been doing it for a long, long time. No problems. They have the rules and safeguards and procedures in place. They ask every voting season if you're still there and you're still voting by mail (rather than, like California, blanketing the state with every possible voter, dead or alive). They require paper and they require signatures. And it is so very, very convenient. You're not recommending we put a halt to that, are you?
Stan,
I'm not saying completely eliminate it, but the recent increase in blindly mailing ballots to people who haven't asked for one is clearly at in increased risk of compromise. It sounds like AZ has things a little more buttoned down than other states. I'd say that a minimum of what you've outlined, combined with the MN system that counts mail in/absentee ballots early and secures them until election day, with a hard deadline, could be workable. Not to take a shot at you, but I'm on the side of things that says that making voting a little "inconvenient" or a little "harder" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
"Do you disagree? How do YOU assess a media group's reliability? Gut feeling?"
Do I disagree with you choosing to put your faith in others to make up your mind for you, no. You do you. I asses a media group's reliability in multiple ways, but since I tend to be skeptical of most media, I mostly research individual stories that interest me. No.
"It is unsourced and biased."
It's OAN, of course it's biased. You've spent multiple comments telling me that bias is normal, now you bitch about it. Make up your mins.
"Not extremely so, but it wouldn't have gotten past my college newspaper's editors. It is obviously not a high journalistic source, for those familiar with what to look for in an actual news story. Some tell tale signs... NO SOURCE: After the introduction, it leads... "On Thursday, party leaders from both chambers discussed the possibility of attaching pandemic aid to an omnibus spending bill before the December 11 deadline." Says who? How do we know leaders from both chambers? What is the source? No one is sourced. There's one "twitter comment" picture inserted into the story with a line from McConnell. No rebuttal, no views from the other side. This is not a news story. It's someone with an opinion passing on the news they got from some other source. I'd be willing to bet the "reporter" didn't interview anyone. They're just offering a report on what they read elsewhere. Speaking of: BYLINE: There is no reporter's name attached to the story. That's a problem and not in fitting with journalistic standards. LENGTH: It's about six paragraphs long. Short on information and short on detail. Here's ABC's story on the same topic... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-heads-home-thanksgiving-pandemic-relief-deal/story?id=74296744 SOURCE: Early on, they identify that Democratic aides passed on information. There are actual quotes from actual people who are actually identified. There are quotes from Democrats and quotes from Republicans. BYLINE: We can see who reported the story. That's important. LENGTH: This is a hefty news story that's 20-25 paragraphs long. Lots of information, lots of detail. Assuming you actually studied journalism, do you recognize that your school newspaper would not have given a pass to the OAN story and they would have for the ABC story? Do you not see a significant seismic difference between the two stories? Hint: ONE is actually a news story as told by a journalistic outfit. The other is just a partisan brainfart. And THAT was one of the better OAN stories. Be serious, people."
I'm going to point out the obvious, that you've ignored, the story contains facts. By your low bar, the mere presence of facts is sufficient. I'm not going to project my biases on what the editors of my University newspaper would have done or not done 20 years ago. Although, in general, standards were higher then. But, here's the solution. Know that OAN isn't up to your high standards of journalism and don't get your news from them. Or, if you do, check the stories with other sources. It's not hard.
"We ALL are in charge of supporting legitimate news sources and speaking out against partisan hacks that are not abiding by journalistic standards."
Really, who decided that?
"In a rational world, where people recognized Alex Jones or Trump or OAN pretty universally as the conman/idiot/liars that they are, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. BUT, in a nation where HALF the GOP believes the OAN, Trump and other liars when Trump says he "won" and believe - with no data - that "the media" is all lying, then we have an even greater responsibility to come to the defense of actual news organizations."
Ahhhhhh, the "we must blindly defend something" gambit. I'll repeat that when you move from dealing with individuals, to dealing with groups, you lose the ability to be discerning. This notion of grading "the media" is absurd. The olny rational tactic is to deal with news on a story by story, or outlet by outlet basis, anything else is pointless.
"And when it's conservatives who are believing the conspiracy theories and ridiculous lies, then it's RATIONAL and RESPONSIBLE conservatives who have a special obligation to denounce the Trumps and OANs of the world."
Says who. Did you denounce Hillary in 2016 when she said similar things? Did you denounce the 1619 project when it was exposed as propaganda, not history? Did you denounce Stacy Abrams who still thinks she won GA? Again, if you're not going to do what you ask of others, just stop the hypocrisy.
"This is why I push you so much. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're one of the rational ones. Are you?"
You don't push. You assume, you guess, you demand that I do things you won't, you spew vitriol, you spew hatred, you continually lie, and you continually engage in ad hom attacks.
""Are "the media" exempt from being held to a standard of truth?" Nope. of course not. "Who decides which "media" are the approved outlets, and which aren't?" We ALL need to decide that as responsible citizens. AND, in a nation where large numbers are believing conspiracy theories and lies (like Trump's stupidly false claim that he won and that there was an effort to steal the election), we especially have to speak out against the liars and non-news partisan hacks who pass on conspiracy theories and lies."
Then do so. But stop this idiocy of demanding that others do what you won't and this nonsense about silencing people you don't agree with.
"But I've said that."
Over and over, but you haven't answered multitudes of questions or proven any of your claims to be objectively true. Why not try those things instead of repeating yourself.
"The question is: Which side are you on?"
Asked and answered.
"Do you recognize the great danger that Trump and OAN and Alex Jones are posing to a free republic"
You keep saying this, without any actual proof.
"Do you recognize the threat that stupidly false claims like "I won" pose in a land where so many of your comrades take it to be factual?"
You keep projecting your biases and prejudices on people you don't know and despise, which isn't actually proof of your claims. The reality is that once the states certify, and the lawsuits play out, it'll all be over and y'all can spread some more COVID.
"Which side are you on, boy?"
Asked and answered, bitch. But your condescending, quasi racist, slurs are incredibly motivating.
"To hell with your indifference to evil."
who and what the hell are you spewing vitriol about now. I guess this is easier that answering questions and proving claims, bitch.
"The case IS convincing because it's data-based. Trump vomited a God-Damned lie when he said he won. He didn't. He lost. It's over, but instead of admitting that reality, he lied. That's the facts of the matter. Trump vomited and has continued to vomit lies that the election is being stolen. Your pervert con man that you CONTINUE to defend (by your inaction, pretending that a case needs to be made) has fooled HALF of your colleagues/fellow Republicans/conservatives. They believe, contrary to reality, that Trump won the election and that the election was stolen."
As you'd be aware of, if you understood the actual election process, is that the election isn't official until the electors cast their ballots in December. Until then, the results aren't official and Biden hasn't won. If Trump continues after that, I'll reevaluate my response, but until then you are technically incorrect.
"ALL I'm asking you to do is acknowledge reality AND THEN to speak out against those who deny reality because their denial is dangerous and it undermines our free republic."
Something you won't do when your folx do similar things.
"Are you denying reality, Craig?"
NO.
"If so, why?"
I'm not, but ask this stupid question anyway. It's easier than answering mine or than proving your claims.
"Do you not recognize the reality of Trump's stupidly false claims?"
yes, I agree that Trump should shut ip and pursue his legal remedies until they run out. Do I realize that you remain silent when those on your side make "stupidly false claims", yes I do.
"If so, Lord have mercy on your deaf and blind mind. "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." You're doing nothing. Repent."
I repented years ago, and am confident that my salvation and hope rests in Jesus. It certainly doesn't rest in you or your approval. But, please continue to make unfounded assumptions, about me and what I'm doing or not doing.
I've almost waded through the piles of bullshit, and will post any other comments without response because I have better things to do than listen to you repeat yourself.
Craig... "As you'd be aware of, if you understood the actual election process, is that the election isn't official until the electors cast their ballots in December."
I just stated a fact. Trump vomited a God damned lie when he said he won. Instead of responding that insanity, you chose to attack me with another God-damned lie.
Do you see your problem? How you undermine yourself as being a credible citizen when you ignore the onslaught of lies and laugh them off as no big deal while engaging in your own lies to attack rational people?
Can you say it straight and clear, take a stand for truth and justice?
Trump said "I won," and it was a lie, a stupidly false claim.
Can you say that?
Trump said, "They're trying to steal the election with massive voter fraud" and that was a lie, an unsupported false claim.
Can you say that clearly and condemn him for making that false claim? Can you condemn the half of the GOP that BELIEVES this trumpvomit?
Dan said,
"You're on the side of a Jesus of your own creation, made in your own cowardly delusional image."
BWAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That Dan! What a vaudevillian!
Trump's made no stupidly false claims until his accusers can prove any of his claims are either false, stupid or stupidly false. Dan, on the other hand...
But when it comes to lying and making stupidly false claims, there's lists like that within this article. WARNING: THE PREVIOUS LINK IS TO AN AMERICANTHINKER.COM ARTICLE AND AS SUCH, DAN WILL SIMPLY DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND WITHOUT SO MUCH AS THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING FOUND WITHIN IT IS UNTRUE.
It's so typical of Dan to pretend that there's something wrong with criticizing the media, but then he hypocritically criticizes sources he finds problematic. The thing is, I've absolutely no confidence he's ever spent much time reading even someone like Alex Jones, and certainly expended NO effort in researching anything he's ever said, no matter how goofy it might sound. (Disclaimer: I've never read Alex Jones, though I've seen him interviewed. I'm aware he's said things I personally found were odd, to say the least, but didn't waste any time on it. As such, I render no opinion of his journalistic integrity one way or the other.)
In the same manner, I doubt Dan spends any time at all viewing OANN, and certainly doesn't life a finger there as well to prove or disprove anything it says. I've tried to get a sense from several links about the network, but found nothing but reviews complaining that they don't provide much to prove what they say, while doing nothing to prove what it is saying about OANN. (Disclaimer: While I've seen bits excerpted from OANN, I've taken them with a grain of salt if unable or unwilling to spend time researching it myself, but haven't spent much time watching the network to know firsthand.)
More later...wife demands my attention. And she gets it!
It’s always interesting when the “Judge not.,.” fokx get judgey. When the “embrace grace” folk abandon grace for vitriol. When the “I follow Jesus” folx, pile hatred on their enemies instead of love. When the “Jesus came to bring economic and political freedom” folx accuse you of following a Jesus of our own making. When the “Love your neighbor” fold, don’t. It’s a glimpse into their souls, I suspect. Heaven forbid that we’d see a time when holding up Truth, would be reviled.
I thought I’d publish Dan’s last comment in it’s entirety to reinforce the point in my previous comment.
Apparently pointing out the fact that nobody has won this recent election is enough to unhinge him into paroxysms of bile, vitriol, lies, and ad hom attacks.
Dan frequently hides behind vague, bland, genera, milquetoast, disapproval of things as a way to avoid disapproval of specific things that reflect badly on his political tribe. Instead of specific condemnation of the rioters, arsonists, and looters, we get a bland “I generally disapprove of violence...”.
So, it’s not enough that I’ve specifically condemned Trump for lying multiple times, and specifically disapproved of his recent comments, I must do exactly what Dan demands or I’m an evil, Trump lover.
Double standard much?
Craig... "pointing out the fact that nobody has won this recent election is enough to unhinge him into paroxysms of bile, vitriol, lies, and ad hom attacks."
Of course, the reality is that someone HAS won the election. Biden has won. Trump has lost.
We know this the same way we know it every year, even before the votes are certified. We know it because the data is there. The votes have been counted. The votes have been reported. It is an official count, based in reality and on data, not made up, like Trump's stupid ass claim.
When it was announced in 2016 that Trump won, even before the votes were certified, it was announced as a fact because it was a fact. The certification doesn't mean he hadn't won before they were certified. Just that it wasn't certified.
It is not a lie to say that Biden has won the election. It IS a God damned lie for Trump to say that he won.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Why can you not answer a question directly, clearly? Why must you dodge and obfuscate in order to defend rich corrupt oppressors?
Whatever. If repeating yourself constantly makes you feel more adequate or better, don’t let me stop you. Just don’t expect me to keep responding.
The other comment is arguably off topic and it’s going to sit in moderation for a while.
As I've been looking about, I've thus far found two cases where Trump suggests he's won the election. Both refer to counts of legal votes, as opposed to counts of all votes. In one case he said,
“We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election."
This was said in the context of a fair election with only legal votes counted. In another case, he said,
“If you count the legal votes, I easily win."
So Dan's diaper-wetting whine about Trump's "God damned lie" as in fact, not surprisingly, a lie itself, for Trump was speaking in terms of what he believes in happening in this election. Thus, it's an opinion, regardless of how true Trump believes the opinion is. Opinions are not lies...unless they're Dan's opinions, because when Dan says "opinion", it's just to cover the fact he's saying what he knows is or is likely to be untrue, but wants it to be otherwise.
Thus, when Dan said,
"I just stated a fact. Trump vomited a God damned lie when he said he won."
...he wasn't at all stating a fact, but was lying that Trump was.
"Of course, the reality is that someone HAS won the election. Biden has won. Trump has lost."
Reality here stops where the first sentence ends, because it's the reality of every election. "Someone HAS won the election." Whether it's Biden or Trump in this one is what is being contested and until all such claims have been confirmed or disproved, no claim of victory is more than hope.
Now, I'm willing to concede it's common to claim victory before Electoral College certification, and that the apparent winner as suggested by the vote totals as reported compels the apparent winner to claim the title "President-Elect" prior to that EC certification. But as all things 2020AD have been, this has been no ordinary election, and evidence of fraud and irregularity is plentiful. And while Dan will pretend he's honest and reasonable in suggesting problems of every election, there's been nothing like this and there's been no possibility of the Dems bringing it up in years where they've won, because it worked for them.
And despite the very real possibility that all the anomalies of this election may simply mean it's been just a weird election...that Trump could be up big in all swing states but still lose after vote counting has stopped and resumed with subsequent votes going for Biden, and things of this nature...the fact that so many strange things have taken place justifies any scrutiny and legal action Trump takes to assure himself and the nation (that half who actually and sincerely gives a flying rat's ass about election integrity) whatever is the true final result in indeed the true final result.
Personally, I think it would be absolutely wonderful to have all non-legal ballots, all acts of fraud and criminal behavior, all voter/election irregularities resolved BEFORE the Electoral College certifies, rather than after Inauguration Day, as has historically been the case. What true American...what real Christian would have it any other way?
"And it's always hypocritical when the judgemental types extend Grace to Rich oppressors, the ones that the prophets and Jesus and the apostles denounce."
Interesting hunch, too bad there are so many examples otherwise.
Jesus, forgave and complimented the faith of a Roman Centurion. He healed one of the men who came to arrest Him. He forgave the Roman soldiers who crucified Him. He didn't denounce Pilate or the Sanhedrin. He forgave Zaccheus,
Paul and Silas didn't denounce the jailers. Peter doesn't denounce the Roman government that was killing his fellow Christians.
Maybe you're under the impression that "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.", was optional.
As usual, thank you for making my point.
The absolute hubris it takes to pull this shit is amazing. You've left multitudes of questions unanswered, and multiple claims unproven, and you're pulling this shit.
"1. Do you think you've answered the question: Do you recognize that Trump lied when he falsely claimed he won the election?"
It's interesting that you didn't jump on P-BO, Hillary, and the "Russia Hoaxers" for making essentially the same claim. Was the claim at the time, technically not true, yes. Would I consider it a lie, no more than any other expression of political rhetoric that is hyperbolic, not really. Was it poorly stated, yes. Will it likely be a lie, with intent to mislead, soon? Yes. Was it the sort of "lie" that's going to bring danger and death, as you portrayed it, no. Was it also a similar lie, when Biden said he won? Yes, technically. I this the lie that I'm going to lose my mind over, no.
"2. If so, what was your answer?"
Why, is your reading comprehension impaired?
"3. Same for the question about Do you recognize that Trump lied when he said "they" were trying to "steal" the election with massive voter/election fraud? Why would you not answer these questions?"
Again, there's enough "smoke" around the election, that it wasn't unreasonable to make those sorts of hyperbolic claims, and to use every legal means to find out. Again, were your panties this twisted for the last four years when all sorts of folks have been prating about the "Russia" hoax? No, you just need something to keep your panties wadded and have something to hate your enemies about until inauguration day. Clearly things like: grace, forgiveness, kindness, or magnanimity are on your agenda and won't likely be for the next 4 years. I've addressed the voter fraud issues at least once, it's not my fault you are too lazy to find it.
"Here's a reality based question that I'd like to see you address some time"
I guess you've been too busy not answering my questions or proving your claims to be true to ask it.
": Qanon... Do you agree that they are insane,"
I'll start by saying that QAnon, is something that I consider to be such a nothingburger that I've invested no time in researching it. If you are going to claim they are "insane", please show me the specific evidence of insanity. I've seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion, but I also haven't looked. I'm sure you've done extensive research on them and have lots of evidence.
"perhaps cultic"
Given the qualifications above, perhaps. Of course, I'd argue that many quasi mainstream movements are cultic.
"conspiracy theorists"
Again, given the above, probably. But so are the Holocaust deniers.
"who should not be trusted"
Again, I can't speak to the trustworthiness of each individual follower, nor am I willing to make this reckless sort of broad brushing of an entire group of people I know very little about.
"and that they should not be supported by white evangelicals the way they are?"
I have absolutely no idea what you consider to be "evangelicals", so have no way to asses your question. I personally am unaware of any "evangelicals" who are "supporters", but it's not something that's on my radar.
I'll say that there has been a gradual trend among some evangelicals to move away from things like discernment, apologetics, and studies of that nature. Given that, I doesn't surprise me when "evangelicals" are misled by all sorts of false gospels.
Since, I suspect this is an attempt to further divert this thread from it's topic and from your glaring failure to answer questions or prove your claims. I will transfer this to it's own post and will move and comments there as well.
Craig... "Was the claim at the time, technically not true, yes. Would I consider it a lie, no more than any other expression of political rhetoric that is hyperbolic, not really."
And this is the problem. You have no concept of the depths of depravity this man continues to dish out. He can fool half the nation into thinking he won, that the media is the "enemy of the people," that people are out to steal the election, that the Mexicans are "sending us their rapists and bad guys..." and on and on. It doesn't matter that NONE of these vulgar lies have any data to support them or that they're false, not to you. It's just a hiccup. "I'd really prefer he didn't put it that way..."
What a milquetoast opposition to such a great level of depravity.
And I'm guessing you just don't recognize that you are who they're talking about when they say, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing..."
You choke on the minor misdeeds and perceived misdeeds of a boy scout like Obama but swallow the camel of Trump's most overt perversions and corruption... you don't recognize the historic level of his depravity and so you write it off as minor irritations.
May your eyes one day be opened.
Ok, the Q crap Is going somewhere else.
As to your second comment, your conclusion is based on your assumptions about what you think I might or might not be doing. The fact that I don’t fall lemminglike into your vortex of Trump hatred, doesn’t mean that I’m 100% on board with him. You’ve managed, once more, to make this thread about your straw men, question avoidance, and failing to prove your claims. At this point you’re just making shit up and trying to throw it up against a wall to see what sticks.
It’s possible to point out the reality that you’re overreacting and have your panties wadded, without automatically supporting the opposite extreme from your Trump hatred.
It's hilarious to see Dan once again speak of Trump's "depths of depravity" (ignoring his own embrace of abortion and sexual immorality...both of which is clearly depraved) while never once providing evidence of a kind that comes anywhere near what he demands of others, if he provides any at all.
He also needs to believe our positions are somehow dictated to us by Trump, as if either of us are incapable of coming to our own conclusions based on our own observations and study.
What a depraved and false person Dan is!! He minimizes, if not outright ignores, the sins of his own kind, while overstating those of those he hates, if not outright inventing them, in order to convince others, as well as himself, of that which he so desperately needs to believe in order to live with his total depravity.
Post a Comment