I just saw a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.
Personally, I suspect that this will be the final conclusion.
However the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results. I find this motion strange. That we’d accept some level of fraud in our elections as long as it doesn’t change the results, seems unacceptable.
I know it’s strange to some, but I value the integrity of the voting process, more than the outcome of a single election. I’ve seen enough claims from people who don’t seem to gain anything by lying, to make me think that there need to be investigations and that the guilty parties (including political parties) should be dealt with harshly. If not now, it’ll likely get worse going forward.
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213"O. IF YOU (note that IF) IF YOU are going to make a serious charge like "the press" - whatever/whoever you mean by that - is "an enemy of the people" - whatever you mean by that, THEN YOU have to support that claim, because on the face of it, it is false and stupid as hell."
Of course, I haven't made that claim. Nor am I going to make that claim. The fact that you are more focused on a claim that I haven't, and don't plan to make, rather that the specific, measurable, provable claim that you actually did make, is amusing.
"THEN, IF YOU are going to make the claim, YOU have to support it."
Since, you did, then yes you do.
"I would be the one making the charge, the onus is on me to prove it, not you to disprove it."
Yes, you ate the one making the charge, and yes, the onus is on you to prove it.
"IF YOU want to make the charge, YOU prove it."
Again, you HAVE made a charge, and you haven't proven it.
As an aside, I love the "the ones I know" dodge. It makes you sound like you "know" enough actual working journalists to extrapolate your "experience" out to encompass every single media member in the US. It also allows you to sort of make the "argument from numbers" logical fallacy, although it's vague and nonspecific enough to give you the escape hatch. Finally, there's the very non specificity of this soft claim. You don't actually mention the names and organizations of these people you "know", which leaves us with no actual data to verify your claim. As usual, you expect us to trust you, while demanding that we provide "data". Double standards appear to be all you have.
"You have to support a charge and explain what you mean."
Why yes, you do. I shouldn't have to support a charge or claim that I haven't made, should I?
"Rumors, gossip and slander are not part of the realm of God, nor of a decent human society."
Yet you engage in those things, as well as offering a place for others to engage in those things with impunity.
"Do you not recognize how funny/insane/irrational this comment is?'
On the one hand, it's no more funny/insane/irrational than you demanding that I support a claim that I haven't made, while you evade the reality that you won't support a claim that you have made.
On the other hand, you do have a history of doing things like demanding definitions/data/etc as a way to divert attention away from thing and as a way to take control of the conversation.
Dan,
YOU made the claim, you need to prove the claim you made. You understand this concept as it applies to others, yet fail spectacularly to apply it to yourself.
"Are you suggesting that I need to "prove" that each and every person who works for a media group is not an enemy of the people?"
I'm suggesting that you need to prove the claim you made. Is that concept confusing for you?
"DONE. They aren't."
Excellent. The quality of the data you've offered is spectacular, and incredibly detailed. Thank you for providing the template that I will use in the future when you demand that I prove a claim. well done.
"Right? If I'm mistaken, then who? WHO specifically in the media is an enemy of the people? WHAT made them an enemy of the people?"
I've never made any of those claims, yet you continue to demand that I prove claims I haven't made and answer these moronic questions.
"There's literally nothing for me to defend UNLESS and UNTIL someone makes a specific clear charge against someone."
You made the specific claim, prove it, or retract it. The problem I see is that you are now stuck between a claim that you can't prove, and acknowledging that the claim you made was un provovable and retracting it. The first is impossible, and the second is unpalatable.
"Are you saying that NPR, as a whole, is an enemy of the people? How? What did they do, specifically, that makes them an enemy of the people?"
No, I'm not and I've never said anything of the sort. But if asking me to clarifiy "Are you saying...", about things I've literally never said, helps buy you time and divert attention from the claims you've made, then I guess you'll continue this idiotic nonsense.
"Is BBC an enemy of the people? CBS? FoxNews? HOW? What did they do? What is the specific charge?"
Do you realize that asking virtually the same question more than once in a single comment is stupid and pointless? Even more so when the question is based on your made up fantasy that I've said something that I haven't said. Again, if it helps divert attention...
"Unless and until you can provide SOME rational, fact-based charge, an empty, unsupported claim is nothing. There's nothing to defend against."
I've not made any charges. Your delusion about this is part of the problem, your inability to prove your claim is another.
"How specifically am I mistaken?"
You are mistaken when you construct a straw man, and base your entire response on that straw man.
YOU made the claim, you need to prove the claim you made. You understand this concept as it applies to others, yet fail spectacularly to apply it to yourself.
The let me clarify for you what you appear to not understand:
There is ZERO DATA that says, "the media" is an "enemy of the people." People make this claim with ZERO DATA to support this vague and nothing charge.
Now, I can't assess the claim that Trump/Marshal are making because there is ZERO DATA to support the claim.
"The enemy of the people..."? Who? What did they do to earn that title? What does "enemy of the people" mean to you?
UNTIL they answer THOSE questions, there is literally nothing to prove.
Do you understand?
Also, DO YOU UNDERSTAND that when I ask you "IF YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM..." that it is a question. IF you are NOT making the claim, then it doesn't apply to you. IF you are, then it does. It's a conditional statement. Do you understand the concept of a conditional statement?
If not, would you like me to explain it to you further or do you now understand?
"Ha! I mean, I literally am laughing out loud. Do you not recognize how funny/insane/irrational this comment is?"
A more mature, desire for common ground response would be, "What do you mean by that?"
But I'm certain I've explained myself already at your blog.
"Dan likes to demand definitions, which is another overt act of diversion and obfuscation."
This is true because when you demand definitions, you do one of two things:
1. You pretend the word is inappropriate because it doesn't apply EXACTLY to you due to one or more slight deviations. For example, "See? I'm not a liar because I wasn't intending to deceive." Now, we're tasked with explaining where the intention comes in, and the obfuscation and tangential deflection snowballs.
2. You pretend the word is appropriate despite you being only loosely aligned with it's definition. We've seen you use words for which the dictionary provides multiple definitions, one or more of which may or may not be what was intended by it's use, or which may or may not be the most common usage.
You play with definitions to deceive, obfuscate and deflect from the real issue on the table. Laugh if you like. I don't think it's funny how routinely you employ this tactic.
"Marshal calls me a socialist AND YET, the literal definition of socialist is NOT what I believe? In what possible sense am I a socialist, then?"
This is being addressed at your blog, or will be in more detail when time allows.
(Recall that my job has a very unusual schedule that inhibits my ability to keep up with ongoing discussions. On some days I can only post a quick comment (like today), and I do so to keep my hand in the game until my schedule allows for more detailed responses.)
"Same with this press nonsense. "An enemy of the people..."? What do you MEAN by that, because the way you're using it literally does not fit the typical meaning of the term."
Yes it does and I've explained it numerous times, which is another ploy of yours...pretending a definition or explanation wasn't given so that you can press your lie.
"Clarifying word meanings and usage is a critical first step to finding some sort of understanding. NOT an effort to undermine clarity."
If only that was true in your case.
"HOW are "the press" an enemy of the people? Making mistakes? Being "too liberal" for your personal taste?"
Again, explained in detail multiple times. Nonetheless, you pretend the problem with the left-wing media is "making mistakes" or being "too liberal for our personal tastes". It's amazing the ease with which you lie.
Gotta go.
"DONE. They aren't."
Excellent. The quality of the data you've offered is spectacular, and incredibly detailed. Thank you for providing the template that I will use in the future when you demand that I prove a claim. well done.
??? What is the "data" that shows that "the media" is not "an enemy of the people..."? What does it look like to provide that data?
If I point to ALL the non-enemy stuff they do and the ENTIRE lack of enemy stuff they do, is that not sufficient? Doesn't someone have to point to the presence of enemy stuff for the claim to have any validity?
This line of reasoning is completely irrational. Explain to me what constitutes proof of their innocence? Explain to me why it isn't on Trump or Marshal's back to actually PROVIDE proof of their claims?
I've not made any charges. Your delusion about this is part of the problem, your inability to prove your claim is another.
Read and understand: I HAVE NOT SAID THAT YOU MADE CHARGES.
Do you understand that or would it help if I repeat that 20 more times? 100 more times?
I have not said that you made charges. Trump, Marshal and other people on your side HAVE made these charges and I stated the CONDITIONAL comment: IF YOU ARE SAYING the media is an enemy of the people, THEN YOU have to support it, explain it, define it.
IF you agree with me that the claim about the media is a stupidly false one, then why not find some common ground and make the call to your conservative colleagues to quit making these stupidly false and un-Godly charges? Or tell THEM to step up and explain themselves/make their case.
Now, the ball is in your court. IF you agree with me that this is a stupidly false claim, you can choose to be quiet in the face of evil (and ungrounded attacks on a free press IS evil, don't doubt that for a moment), OR you can join me and take a stand against the slanderers and liars.
There's your real opportunity for finding common ground.
Dan: "Unless and until you can provide SOME rational, fact-based charge, an empty, unsupported claim is nothing. There's nothing to defend against."
Craig: "I've not made any charges. Your delusion about this is part of the problem, your inability to prove your claim is another."
Since this was a conditional statement ("IF you are making this claim..."), then it doesn't apply to you, does it?
And so, there is NO delusion on my part, is there?
And so, your claim that I have a delusion is, itself, a false charge. In the interest of common ground and basic decency, perhaps the better part for you would be to admit the false charge and retract it and apologize for it.
Mistakes happen. No harm, no foul. Just admit it and be the better for it.
"Do you understand?"
I understand that you made a claim, were asked to prove your claim, and have sent multiple comments avoiding proving your claim and attributing things to me that you made up.
"What is the "data" that shows that "the media" is not "an enemy of the people..."?"
Apparently sarcasm is beyond you. So I'll be blunt. YOU HAVEN"T PROVIDED ANY DATA TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM, ZERO DATA. It's sarcasm. Because the rest of your questions were clearly based on your inability to recognize sarcasm, I won't bother with them. I'll say that if you actually proved your own claim, your bitching would be more grounded in reality.
This notion that you are exempt from proving your claims, while others must do so is bizarre.
"Unless and until you can provide..."
The fact that you think that the above sentence can be interpreted as applying to anyone except the person it was addressed to (me), renders your last two comments more pointless than usual.
This notion that you are exempt from proving your claims, while others must do so is bizarre.
...? So, I guess you're just not understanding that there is NOTHING to prove. Until and unless someone actually provides SOME SPECIFIC charge WITH some specific data, there is nothing to prove. It's just a false claim/rumor/slander that is unsupported and can only be ignored.
I don't know how to help you understand.
"So, I guess you're just not understanding that there is NOTHING to prove."
You made the claim, it's on you to prove it. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand this as it applies to you.
"(and ungrounded attacks on a free press IS evil, don't doubt that for a moment)"
Whew!! Good thing the attacks on the press leveled by Trump and so, so many others are grounded!!
The leftist media is without doubt the enemy of the people. It's true because they aren't doing their job honestly and in the manner journalists were at one time known for.
Just spent some time watch CNN covering the “Covid relief” bill and Trump’s response and somehow couldn’t actually discuss the merits of the bill. The assumption was that the bill was good enough and that we should be happy with this absurd $600 joke of a stimulus.
I’ll try to go deeper tomorrow, but this sort of “journalism” doesn’t seem to have Americans best interests at hard.
Post a Comment