(04-25-2024, 05:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If you are defending the corruption that tried to overthrow the will of the people.
You are a traitor. You might think you are a patriot or something. But you’ve been brainwashed. And you support the enemies they speak of when we take an oath to defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
You keep spewing the same liberal propaganda. Trump has not been indicted on trying to overthrow the will of anyone.
Your blatant lies get very old.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
(04-25-2024, 05:37 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You keep spewing the same liberal propaganda. Trump has not been indicted on trying to overthrow the will of anyone.
Your blatant lies get very old.
I don’t give a shit if he was indicted or not. It has played out in real time in front of your face.
If you can’t see it. Unfortunately you are one of the brainwashed ones.
lol at lies getting old. Jesus. The hypocrisy is off the charts.
It’s simple. He tried to steal an election every way he could think of. From a mob at the Capitol to secret fake elector plots to bullshit legal challenges that got some of his lawyers in trouble for even bringing them. And you and a bunch of other gullible people who have took the bait hook, line, and sinker bang the table every day in support of an enemy of our constitution.
(04-25-2024, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And yet, Trump is not indicted in this case. I understand some skepticism about the system, I do, but as well documented as this conspiracy was it is just baffling to me how much people are able to willingly accept that people were trying to throw out the votes.
Assuming your talking about the votes at the poles, let's talk about something that's not mentioned on here much in regards to the election. There were different protocols during the election because of covid. The pole watchers in many cases weren't allowed close enough to watch and make sure things were legit. By no means am I talking about all voting stations, but there was enough of this going on which would cause people to be suspect.
Quote:As for the comments on the media, again, I understand the criticisms and have discussed them in other threads. However, the people that often decry the "one-sided media" the loudest are the ones relying on even more partisan sources for their own information. It is mostly about a game of "gotcha" to people at this point because of how much those with a more liberal bent have been pointing out the highly biased sources on the right. If they really cared about media integrity, then there wouldn't be so many news sources that are really just propaganda arms.
Media is what it is. I don't see how you can't include them in everything wrong with politics. I'm not pointing to left or right. I pointing to all media.
Quote:To be clear, this is not everyone who talks about the media bias on the right. But if you come at something reported in the AP or Reuters and you regularly share links from Washington Times, anything from a Fox News Channel source, Real Clear Politics, the National Review, the Federalist, the Daily Wire, or any of the other news sources that are much more heavily biased than anything from the AP or Reuters, I have no time for you.
See, this is an issue. We know FOX, CNN and the rest are biased. Heck, it was recently an article was posted by pewresearch which claimed to be unbiased. Well, we know how that thread worked out. There are many who claim the unbiased tag, the real truth tag, etc. which fail to live by their claims.
Believe me, I understand your frustration, but it's not going away anytime soon. News has become more about making money than reporting the truth. Integrity is rare. I will agree with you there is some unbiased news sources out there, but they're not the ones who fuel the fire.
Your last paragraph confused me a little. Are you saying AP or Reuters is unbiased?
(04-25-2024, 07:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Assuming your talking about the votes at the poles, let's talk about something that's not mentioned on here much in regards to the election. There were different protocols during the election because of covid. The pole watchers in many cases weren't allowed close enough to watch and make sure things were legit. By no means am I talking about all voting stations, but there was enough of this going on which would cause people to be suspect.
That is irrelevant to this conspiracy. The remedy for concerns over the veracity of the vote is not to engage in a scheme to present a slate of electors that were not those that were officially presented. That is just flat out fraud. What occurred within the states was a lot of review over the votes that found little to no evidence of fraudulent voting. However, the conspiracy was entered into because of a refusal to accept those results. The disinformation presented about the election, and note I am saying disinformation rather than misinformation, has created this frenzy over it and at this point there is enough information out there that people should be able to know better. The perpetuation of this narrative by Trump is causing this issue and I just don't have any patience for it at this point.
(04-25-2024, 07:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Media is what it is. I don't see how you can't include them in everything wrong with politics. I'm not pointing to left or right. I pointing to all media.
Honestly, media is just a reflection of our society. Media requires money to operate. Investors won't put money into it if they don't get money out of it. Advertisers won't advertise if they don't see the audience being of value to their business. Donors won't give if they don't see value in what is being provided. You want to solve the media problem? Stop clicking, stop reading, stop listening, stop watching. You want to know about what's going on, go read the legislative records, read the actual executive orders, listen to the courts recordings. The problem is that there is so much going on and so many people are unable to fully comprehend these sorts of things. This is the importance of media in this is huge. We would have zero idea what is going on in Ukraine or Gaza without journalists on the ground in these places. So we need media because people can't keep up with these things all themselves but really not consuming the media is the only way to send the message.
(04-25-2024, 07:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: See, this is an issue. We know FOX, CNN and the rest are biased. Heck, it was recently an article was posted by pewresearch which claimed to be unbiased. Well, we know how that thread worked on out there ut. There are many who claim the unbiased tag, the real truth tag, etc. which fail to live by their claims.
I'm actually unfamiliar with this thread. I do know that Pew Research is one of, if not the most well respected and neutral references we have. So that is interesting if something occurred like what you are discussing.
(04-25-2024, 07:34 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Your last paragraph confused me a little. Are you saying AP or Reuters is unbiased?
I am saying that in the current media ecosystem they are as close to unbiased and fact-based as you will find right now and compared to those I listed they are pretty much neutral. There is no such thing as unbiased anything. It doesn't exist.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-26-2024, 07:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm actually unfamiliar with this thread. I do know that Pew Research is one of, if not the most well respected and neutral references we have. So that is interesting if something occurred like what you are discussing.
I don't find that argument to be particularly convincing. For one, the sums donated by individuals amount to about 3.000 dollars for Biden and similar amounts to a few others. That is peanuts. More significantly though, I reject the assumption that just because someone donates a few dollars to a democrat it means that person can not possibly be objective and neutral in his job anymore. That is just a leap too far for me. At what point can anyone be called biased and unreliable just because he votes?
So, Pew doesn't donate to Dems, some of their employees do. And no, it's not debatable. As someone who understands the mechanics of polling and the analysis thereof more than the average consumer, I know Pew is top notch in it all.
(04-26-2024, 11:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't find that argument to be particularly convincing. For one, the sums donated by individuals amount to about 3.000 dollars for Biden and similar amounts to a few others. That is peanuts. More significantly though, I reject the assumption that just because someone donates a few dollars to a democrat it means that person can not possibly be objective and neutral in his job anymore. That is just a leap too far for me. At what point can anyone be called biased and unreliable just because he votes?
You are correct. What you are seeing, though, is a desired result of propaganda efforts that have been ongoing for some time. Certain segments of the political powers have been pushing the message that there is an inability for someone to separate themselves from their political being. The reason for this is that is is used to attack institutional structures that are used to bolster our democratic framework. The attack career officials in Washington as the "Deep State" is what this is all about. There is a concerted efforts to attack the guardrails of our democracy and this is the core of it.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-26-2024, 11:58 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't find that argument to be particularly convincing. For one, the sums donated by individuals amount to about 3.000 dollars for Biden and similar amounts to a few others. That is peanuts. More significantly though, I reject the assumption that just because someone donates a few dollars to a democrat it means that person can not possibly be objective and neutral in his job anymore. That is just a leap too far for me. At what point can anyone be called biased and unreliable just because he votes?
$3000 or 3 million. Who cares? The point is the majority was made to Dems. If that sits well with you, then so be it. But to me, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
(04-26-2024, 12:59 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: $3000 or 3 million. Who cares?
Well, it actually would make quite the difference. Donating a few dollars is just what politicians ask you to do and what millions do, it's pretty common. Spending 3 million, that would be quite a different animal, far away from said established normalcy.
(04-26-2024, 12:59 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: The point is the majority was made to Dems. If that sits well with you, then so be it. But to me, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
Well, that seems harsh, over a few thousand dollars of private donations in total. So what? Many prefer democrats to win, that is not so seldom, around half of the country does. Is now, in your eyes, half of the country unreliable because they have this political opinion, because they like Obamacare or believe in climate change or whatever motivates them privately? And what about the other half, that prefer the other duck? Is anyone ever having a preferrence for one of your parties over the other for whatever reason automatically incapable of objectivity?
This is the case/issue, in additional to the documents, that has real merit and justification.
But they're smart not to indict Trump initially. If they get a conviction on the others, THEN they should go after Trump. That way he's not a victim of a politicized DA if they charge him and lose.
(04-26-2024, 01:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that seems harsh, over a few thousand dollars of private donations in total. So what? Many prefer democrats to win, that is not so seldom, around half of the country does. Is now, in your eyes, half of the country unreliable because they have this political opinion, because they like Obamacare or believe in climate change or whatever motivates them privately? And what about the other half, that prefer the other duck? Is anyone ever having a preferrence for one of your parties over the other for whatever reason automatically incapable of objectivity?
Here's how I view it. If I donate money, it's because it's something I truly believe in. Would I be able to report unbiased? I would like to think I could, but I'm human and at the end of the day my credibility will come into question once people find out I donated to a cause, and rightfully so. The amount of dollars to me doesn't matter. People donate what they can afford.
Now, let's consider all the posters in P&R. If we all donated to the same cause, and based on our past writings, passions and POVs. Do you honestly think we could all be unbiased? We are talking about people who post daily so you have some sort of relationship to the poster. Whereas, you know nothing about the employees at pewresearch except that they donated mainly to Dems. I don't think my concerns are as far fetched as you try to make them out to be.
As for your questions, I think I answered it above, but if not, then I'll just say based on your example above, I won't say people are unreliable because they lean a certain direction, but as a human, if someone tries to sell me something and it's obvious they don't agree with my views, then I will always question. Like you are doing to me now.
(04-26-2024, 02:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Here's how I view it. If I donate money, it's because it's something I truly believe in. Would I be able to report unbiased? I would like to think I could, but I'm human and at the end of the day my credibility will come into question once people find out I donated to a cause, and rightfully so. The amount of dollars to me doesn't matter. People donate what they can afford.
Now, let's consider all the posters in P&R. If we all donated to the same cause, and based on our past writings, passions and POVs. Do you honestly think we could all be unbiased? We are talking about people who post daily so you have some sort of relationship to the poster. Whereas, you know nothing about the employees at pewresearch except that they donated mainly to Dems. I don't think my concerns are as far fetched as you try to make them out to be.
As for your questions, I think I answered it above, but if not, then I'll just say based on your example above, I won't say people are unreliable because they lean a certain direction, but as a human, if someone tries to sell me something and it's obvious they don't agree with my views, then I will always question. Like you are doing to me now.
Sure, I question your argument, but I base it on the merit of the argument itself. I do not question it based on the fact that you lean conservative and at least I try to avoid to base my judgement on your argument's merit on that (not that I'm an angel or anything, I fail at times). The board, imho, is not that much of an apt comparison to begin with, we're all private people exchanging private beliefs in a non-official capacity. And sure, I guess you might be seen just as biased as I might be seen here because our preferences are clear. But I would not question that you could be a fair judge, or a fair factchecker, or a fair journalist or whatever just because I know your preference, I would not call you biased in advance, I'd only do so if you actually did something clearly biased. Just because you vote GOP and maybe even gave a little (I don't know about that, let's just assume), it does not automatically make you a political operative or a GOP minion. That seems to be your implication and that's where I think you take it too far.
As for people donate what they can afford, I assume that threshold would be above 3.000 dollars for Biden in total. They could afford way more.
(04-26-2024, 02:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Here's how I view it. If I donate money, it's because it's something I truly believe in. Would I be able to report unbiased? I would like to think I could, but I'm human and at the end of the day my credibility will come into question once people find out I donated to a cause, and rightfully so. The amount of dollars to me doesn't matter. People donate what they can afford.
So, here is the thing, though. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. Period. Everyone comes to every situation with a bias whether we choose to admit it. When it comes to things like what Pew does, researchers are trained to account for biases. Some of my academic background is similar to the folks at Pew and part of that has included classes on ways to recognize our own biases and methodologies we use to ensure they do not affect our work. Those that do are ostracized in the field if/when it is discovered.
Just because someone has a bias does not mean they are incapable of setting it aside to look at something in as objective of a manner as possible. The idea of a jury trial relies on this assumption. Hell, our entire government is supposed to rely on this idea. It's all about putting the task, the institution, society, others in general ahead of your own interests.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-26-2024, 03:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is the thing, though. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. Period. Everyone comes to every situation with a bias whether we choose to admit it. When it comes to things like what Pew does, researchers are trained to account for biases. Some of my academic background is similar to the folks at Pew and part of that has included classes on ways to recognize our own biases and methodologies we use to ensure they do not affect our work. Those that do are ostracized in the field if/when it is discovered.
Just because someone has a bias does not mean they are incapable of setting it aside to look at something in as objective of a manner as possible. The idea of a jury trial relies on this assumption. Hell, our entire government is supposed to rely on this idea. It's all about putting the task, the institution, society, others in general ahead of your own interests.
Very well said. I feel where your heart is coming from now and why you feel so passionately about it.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: Screenshot-2024-04-25-184612.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/MTGd8zJk/Screenshot-2024-04-25-184612.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
