Ministry of Truth?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(05-18-2022, 02:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Misinformation, threat to our democracy, domestic terrorism.

Ah, the crybaby caucus weighs in.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-17-2022, 11:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you missed my point about Prasad. YOu think it "word salad" if I say that identifying misinformation (and rather easily at that), is not the best way to argue that identifying misinformation is too difficult to entrust to government?  What do you think his argument is? Is yours that, because one official tried to scare people into taking a serious problem seriously, government is not to be trusted with vetting and promulgating medical research/information? For the history of small pox and polio vaccine have settled that. I'm glad the government steps in to insure that our food is hygienically prepared. I'm glad they protect dying people from scams like Laetrile. I'll bet Prasad agrees. So why is he using this minor example to undermine trust in government in general?   

As for Garland and the Mueller Report, I think the Juresic/Wittes article sums it up well enough. They give 5 reasons why Garland may or may not be acting on this.  I am fine with everything they say. What could I add? I hope you are not trying to argue that if Garland is not prosecuting, then the documented obstruction really wasn't there, and really wasn't illegal.

You have thrown up a lot of Youtube presentations. It would be difficult to respond to all. And it seems a bit one sided if I write
pages of critique and then you just post MORE videos or articles and want immediate answers, as if I were somehow shirking or deflecting.

Look at the work I have put into the first one you sent. Your man clearly had Mueller Report wrong. He was clearly
mislead by Barr, and was misleading his viewers. But you have not addressed that at all. Do you agree with my critique? 

So to repeat myself--why not begin with primary sources, with the Report itself, BEFORE throwing out other people's opinions as a kind of proxy argument? Why trust THEM before working through the evidence yourself? What is your arguments in your words, based on what? Mueller says Trump obstructed justice a number of ways, attempting to falsify documents and firing someone investigating him. That did Nixon in. So before you again show me what someone else said, tell me if YOU think Trump obstructed justice, and if not, why not? Do you agree that he did what Mueller says he did? If not, why not?

Meantime, on my side, I want to continue with the second "Russiagate" video. I'm kind of busy but hopefully I can post that tomorrow.

I had a lengthy response. I stepped away to collect my thoughts before posting. Somehow I inadvertently either closed the tab or went to a new page. All is lost. I am tired. Will retype but right now cannot muster up the gumption to do so.....

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-18-2022, 02:54 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Ah, the crybaby caucus weighs in.

I think it’s more sarcastically playing by the rules set by leftists than crying about anything, but I guess that’s for SSF to say.

[Dill]

(05-18-2022, 10:05 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: I think it’s more sarcastically playing by the rules set by leftists than crying about anything, but I guess that’s for SSF to say.

Which rules?  Which "leftists"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 02:54 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Ah, the crybaby caucus weighs in.

(05-18-2022, 10:05 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: I think it’s more sarcastically playing by the rules set by leftists than crying about anything, but I guess that’s for SSF to say.

You'll have to forgive him.  Subtlety and nuance are beyond his ken.  

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:


You'll have to forgive him.  Subtlety and nuance are beyond his ken.  

Don't you think that equating it to Stacey Abrams could be seen as diminshing the insurrection attempts*? The latter being more than just people saying "stolen election" (as bad as this is in either case), after all.


*Of course I don't think you're doing that, but that's just because you're no stranger.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 12:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: Don't you think that equating it to Stacey Abrams could be seen as diminshing the insurrection attempts*? The latter being more than just people saying "stolen election" (as bad as this is in either case), after all.


*Of course I don't think you're doing that, but that's just because you're no stranger.

Oh, most definitely.  There's certainly a difference in degree, and I don't know any sane person who'd argue against that.  That being said, questioning the integrity of elections has been labeled a "threat to our democracy".  Consequently it is more than fair to call out the exact same behavior, albeit to a lesser degree, in Abrams.  There's a world of difference between hitting someone in the head with a bat and kicking them in the groin.  They're both a battery, just of varying degrees, and neither of them is acceptable.  I don't ignore bad behavior in one person and then focus on it in another.  Of course there are some, including posters here, who will immediately label this a "both sides do it" argument and then trot out a long winded and overly verbose argument as to why the greater sin overshadows the lesser to a degree that it's not even worthy of consideration.  This, of course, only fuels further division and labels the person making the argument a partisan actor.  

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, most definitely.  There's certainly a difference in degree, and I don't know any sane person who'd argue against that.

Interesting. I seem to know quite some otherwise sane people who would vigorously argue against that, making indeed a both sides argument. Throwing in some "Hillary did not concede right away" and declare democrats (and anyone) who complain about the insurrection attempts hypocritical.

(05-18-2022, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That being said, questioning the integrity of elections has been labeled a "threat to our democracy".  Consequently it is more than fair to call out the exact same behavior, albeit to a lesser degree, in Abrams.

I don't think that's precise. I'd say questioning the election process is to an extent fair, questioning the integrity of an election without any shred of evidence (and believing that many judges and even Republicans are in on it) is a threat to democracy. It addresses people just not liking the result and inciting them into doing something threatening to democracy about it.
I am most certainly not defending Abrams, who is smart enough to label her own critizism differently. The way she did it, I can see why it's not acceptable. That being said, she explained what she meant and agree or not, her points are not completely meritless or just made up. Never mind the vast differences that followed the respective sayings, a point not even worth making.

(05-18-2022, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a world of difference between hitting someone in the head with a bat and kicking them in the groin.  They're both a battery, just of varying degrees, and neither of them is acceptable.  I don't ignore bad behavior in one person and then focus on it in another.  Of course there are some, including posters here, who will immediately label this a "both sides do it" argument and then trot out a long winded and overly verbose argument as to why the greater sin overshadows the lesser to a degree that it's not even worthy of consideration.  This, of course, only fuels further division and labels the person making the argument a partisan actor.  

I get that. I just feel you're helping others, that have quite a different take than yours, to muddy the waters; like mentioned above. I'd claim you see a part of that in the first affirmative reaction you got here. Meaning the attempt of declaring Democrats worked up about the insurrection attempts as merely making up rules they themselves do not follow, hence it's one of these nothingburgers and political games dismissable on its face. Which is not a very nuanced point, to say the least.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 01:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Interesting. I seem to know quite some otherwise sane people who would vigorously argue against that, making indeed a both sides argument. Throwing in some "Hillary did not concede right away" and declare democrats (and anyone) who complain about the insurrection attempts hypocritical.

A correct level of outrage over the 01/06 riot does not preclude being hypocritical of labeling those who question election integrity as undermining democracy.  Both can, and obviously do, comfortably exist in the same person.  So those leveling allegations of hypocrisy are not inherently wrong because 01/06 was a more severe example.  It is factually accurate to say Hillary and many other Dems, continued to state the 2016 election was illegitimate and that Trump was a Putin puppet.  Again, does it rise to the level of 01/06?  No, but that isn't a bar the accusation of hypocrisy has to hurdle.

Quote:I don't think that's precise. I'd say questioning the election process is to an extent fair, questioning the integrity of an election without any shred of evidence (and believing that many judges and even Republicans are in on it) is a threat to democracy. It addresses people just not liking the result and inciting them into doing something threatening to democracy about it.
I am most certainly not defending Abrams, who is smart enough to label her own critizism differently. The way she did it, I can see why it's not acceptable. That being said, she explained what she meant and agree or not, her points are not completely meritless or just made up. Never mind the vast differences that followed the respective sayings, a point not even worth making.

I honestly haven't delved much into the "big lie", so I can't speak to there being any merit in any of the claims encompassed by that term.  What I can do is use the standards voiced by people to judge their own actions.

Quote:I get that. I just feel you're helping others, that have quite a different take than yours, to muddy the waters; like mentioned above. I'd claim you see a part of that in the first affirmative reaction you got here. Meaning the attempt of declaring Democrats worked up about the insurrection attempts as merely making up rules they themselves do not follow, hence it's one of these nothingburgers and political games dismissable on its face. Which is not a very nuanced point, to say the least.

I have stated, many times, that I abhor hypocrisy.  For all my faults in this forum, are there are a few, I have never been accused of it as my positions are very consistent.  When I see it in others I will point it out.  My intent is not to minimize other positions in so doing, and if that happens it's certainly the fault of the person engaging in the hypocrisy and not me.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Some good news that this board has been put on "pause" and Nina Jankowicz has been let go from her post. This is good news, as illustrated by this article about her from left leaning publication The Nation:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/meet-the-head-of-bidens-new-disinformation-governing-board/

"But there’s no need to engage in hypotheticals to understand the dangers. One has to only consider the past of Nina Jankowicz, the head of the new disinformation board.

Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes.

Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar."

There is, of course, more and if you take the time to read it you'll, hopefully, have an understanding of both why this board was a bad idea and naming this woman to head it an even worse one. Here's the news about the board being put on pause, written, predictably by Taylor Lorenz. BTW, the comments section is literally left wing blindness and propaganda 101.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

And, as predicted in my first post in this thread, the left is starting to label the entire GOP as domestic terrorists.  On Nicole Wallace's show one of here guests stated the following (btw someone lets out an audible gasp when he says this, I think it's Wallace, but whoever it was didn't have the courage to call it out);

"My guidance is that we have to treat it as the terrorist threat that it is. We rallied on 9/11. There was no question about what the country is going to do. We are facing the same threat... We should label them the domestic terrorist party"

https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/status/1526689119514071043

Now, we all know what we do to terrorists, right kids?  No trial detainment, loss of civil rights, the list goes on.  Here's a YouTube clip of the same segment (it doesn't capture the part in the Twitter link).






Please never ask me again why I don't trust the left, at all.  Trump never even came close to going this far in his labeling of people.


EDIT:
I forgot to add, the same guest claimed that 78% of all murders between 2010 and 2018 were committed by white supremacists. A statement so blatantly false that no adult should believe it for one second. Any pushback against this blatantly false narrative? Hell no.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A correct level of outrage over the 01/06 riot does not preclude being hypocritical of labeling those who question election integrity as undermining democracy.  Both can, and obviously do, comfortably exist in the same person.  So those leveling allegations of hypocrisy are not inherently wrong because 01/06 was a more severe example.  It is factually accurate to say Hillary and many other Dems, continued to state the 2016 election was illegitimate and that Trump was a Putin puppet.  Again, does it rise to the level of 01/06?  No, but that isn't a bar the accusation of hypocrisy has to hurdle.

I agree with the sentiment. However, I think only very few people actually called Trump illegitimate. John Lewis did, ok, folks like that always get a pass on everything. There sure were quite some people who questioned the EC, especially after Trump winning despite garnering fewer absolute votes, but that is not questioning election integrity. Nor is critizising voting on a weekday or too few polling places or gerrymandering.
But that's not really what I'm getting at. My point would be that your comment could easily be read as not acknowledging a difference between Adams' complaints and Trump's election fraud claims. Pretty certain those that like your comment overwhelmingly see it just like that, and I consider that downplaying the several insurrection attempts by creating false equivalencies. Again, not saying you deliberately do that, but that you're a bit insensitive on being emboldening those that do, or at least to be perceived that way.

(05-18-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I honestly haven't delved much into the "big lie", so I can't speak to there being any merit in any of the claims encompassed by that term.  What I can do is use the standards voiced by people to judge their own actions.

Well, but you do know enough to know that Trump calling the responsibles in Georgia and demand they find him some votes for in reality he won by a large margin anyway is wrong. Or all the stories of millions of illegal votes, ballots in creeks, forged election mail in votes and all the other stuff every court threw out laughing. Or that Mike Pence should be hanged.

(05-18-2022, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have stated, many times, that I abhor hypocrisy.  For all my faults in this forum, are there are a few, I have never been accused of it as my positions are very consistent.  When I see it in others I will point it out.  My intent is not to minimize other positions in so doing, and if that happens it's certainly the fault of the person engaging in the hypocrisy and not me.  

I'm not calling you hypocritical. What I will say is that you are very eager to point out hypocricies with liberal opinions, at times imho with too broad a brush, and at the same time are quite unwilling to point out all the hypocritical stances of the more conservative posters. Like those who claim liberals have no right to critizise any of Trump's election fraud claims or Green bay sweeps or Capitol storms when they did not refute Abrams or Hillary just as strongly for way minor offenses.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 05:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And, as predicted in my first post in this thread, the left is starting to label the entire GOP as domestic terrorists.  On Nicole Wallace's show one of here guests stated the following (btw someone lets out an audible gasp when he says this, I think it's Wallace, but whoever it was didn't have the courage to call it out);

"My guidance is that we have to treat it as the terrorist threat that it is. We rallied on 9/11. There was no question about what the country is going to do. We are facing the same threat... We should label them the domestic terrorist party"

https://twitter.com/DeadlineWH/status/1526689119514071043

Now, we all know what we do to terrorists, right kids?  No trial detainment, loss of civil rights, the list goes on.  Here's a YouTube clip of the same segment (it doesn't capture the part in the Twitter link).






Please never ask me again why I don't trust the left, at all.  Trump never even came close to going this far in his labeling of people.

Hm, the last sentence, I don't know about that. For one, he heavily implied the FBI was treasonous, or not clapping for him at the state of the union was treasonous, or that the press is the enemy of the people.

As for the rest, the tendency of news stations to let their guests say whatever outrageous thing they want without contradicting, just so they don't have to say it themselves, is absolutely a problem and I can only agree. I would, however, object to extending that anger to the entire left.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 05:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with the sentiment. However, I think only very few people actually called Trump illegitimate. John Lewis did, ok, folks like that always get a pass on everything. There sure were quite some people who questioned the EC, especially after Trump winning despite garnering fewer absolute votes, but that is not questioning election integrity. Nor is critizising voting on a weekday or too few polling places or gerrymandering.
But that's not really what I'm getting at. My point would be that your comment could easily be read as not acknowledging a difference between Adams' complaints and Trump's election fraud claims. Pretty certain those that like your comment overwhelmingly see it just like that, and I consider that downplaying the several insurrection attempts by creating false equivalencies. Again, not saying you deliberately do that, but that you're a bit insensitive on being emboldening those that do, or at least to be perceived that way.

I understand your point, but I don't and never will operate that way.  If I say something inaccurate then please call me on it.  I will not apologize for making accurate statements, even if they can be used by others to justify their own falsehoods.  Again, I'm a personal freedom guy, I don't take responsibility for the actions of adults.  I have routinely called out the 01/06 riot, and did so from the very beginning.  I'm not going to feel responsible for people cherry picking posts of mine to prop up their agenda.

Quote:Well, but you do know enough to know that Trump calling the responsibles in Georgia and demand they find him some votes for in reality he won by a large margin anyway is wrong. Or all the stories of millions of illegal votes, ballots in creeks, forged election mail in votes and all the other stuff every court threw out laughing. Or that Mike Pence should be hanged.

I do, and have rightfully condemned them.  I have already conceded the vast difference in severity between 01/06 and Abrams claims.

Quote:I'm not calling you hypocritical. What I will say is that you are very eager to point out hypocricies with liberal opinions, at times imho with too broad a brush, and at the same time are quite unwilling to point out all the hypocritical stances of the more conservative posters. Like those who claim liberals have no right to critizise any of Trump's election fraud claims or Green bay sweeps or Capitol storms when they did not refute Abrams or Hillary just as strongly for way minor offenses.

That's very easy to explain.  One, until very recently there weren't very many conservative posters here.  Bfine, michaelsean and Brad (and I don't honestly count Brad the same way I don't count Forever Spinning for the left leaning posters) were pretty much the only regulars.  They had no shortage of people willing to call out their perceived hypocrisy.  I'm not a pile on type of guy, if someone else has made the same point I would have made I see no reason to restate the point myself.  Consequently, again until very recently, the left leaning posters had very few people calling them out.  Michaelsean will do so, but he's amore laid back type of dude.  Bfine certainly did, and may have gone too far on occasion (IMO no further than some left leaning posters who are still here, but that's my opinion and not a criticism of the moderation here, which I find to be largely fair and consistent).  So that essentially just left me.  So I can understand your perception being what it is, and I'll honestly give it some thought and maybe you've got more of a point than I'm admitting to myself, but I don't feel it's because of a bias one way or the other.  In the end, for most of the country I'd be considered a liberal, and certainly not a right winger.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 05:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hm, the last sentence, I don't know about that. For one, he heavily implied the FBI was treasonous, or not clapping for him at the state of the union was treasonous, or that the press is the enemy of the people.

As for the rest, the tendency of news stations to let their guests say whatever outrageous thing they want without contradicting, just so they don't have to say it themselves, is absolutely a problem and I can only agree. I would, however, object to extending that anger to the entire left.

The entire left?  Absolutely not.  Just like the entire right is not responsible fore the actions of a radical few.  But this is an accusation, and suggested course of action, that is way beyond the pale.  And steeped in outrageously false statements to boot.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand your point, but I don't and never will operate that way.  If I say something inaccurate then please call me on it.  I will not apologize for making accurate statements, even if they can be used by others to justify their own falsehoods.  Again, I'm a personal freedom guy, I don't take responsibility for the actions of adults.  I have routinely called out the 01/06 riot, and did so from the very beginning.  I'm not going to feel responsible for people cherry picking posts of mine to prop up their agenda.

Fair enough. Nothing more to be expected than to be understood.

I guess part of my motivation was to have people see what your stance really is. Mission accomplished :) is my way to put a lid on that debate, that might in the end be a tad unnnecessary.

(05-18-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's very easy to explain.  One, until very recently there weren't very many conservative posters here.  Bfine, michaelsean and Brad (and I don't honestly count Brad the same way I don't count Forever Spinning for the left leaning posters) were pretty much the only regulars.  They had no shortage of people willing to call out their perceived hypocrisy.  I'm not a pile on type of guy, if someone else has made the same point I would have made I see no reason to restate the point myself.  Consequently, again until very recently, the left leaning posters had very few people calling them out.  Michaelsean will do so, but he's amore laid back type of dude.  Bfine certainly did, and may have gone too far on occasion (IMO no further than some left leaning posters who are still here, but that's my opinion and not a criticism of the moderation here, which I find to be largely fair and consistent).  So that essentially just left me.  So I can understand your perception being what it is, and I'll honestly give it some thought and maybe you've got more of a point than I'm admitting to myself, but I don't feel it's because of a bias one way or the other.  In the end, for most of the country I'd be considered a liberal, and certainly not a right winger.

That's my perception as well. That you're actually much more of a moderate liberal/Biden guy than a Trump guy. Far left, not so much, but more and more that just comes with being reasonable.
Bfine should not be banned, and as far as I know, isn't banned. Idle to determine whether he went too far or further than others. For years I got along with him just fine, from my perspective, until I didn't, but what gives. - I developed an attitude of not caring if no one or everyone is on my side, and that includes going with the majority and piling up (I usually try to be respectful and polite, but in the end it still could be just that) if that's how I feel. I'd feel any other approach, like factoring in how the ratio of liberals to conservatives looks like, in the end would make me deliberately inconsistent. This is not meant to be a backhand critizism, rather an explanation why your take sometimes seems odd and unbalanced to me, but that's just my perception and not objective reality.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2022, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The entire left?  Absolutely not.  Just like the entire right is not responsible fore the actions of a radical few.  But this is an accusation, and suggested course of action, that is way beyond the pale.  And steeped in outrageously false statements to boot.

Yep, and I wish some other posters came to agree with that. But only a few will, if even. Sadly, I feel for most liberal leaning people MSNBC is just part of their own team and you don't go after your own, a trend visible on both sides.

In that sense, I even, in contradiction to what I said before, have a tendency of making the right responsible for the deeds of radicals (like, imho, Trump) as long as they do not distance themselves. Which, imho, these days the right does not do. But that is a critizism that indeed can be applied to both sides, and maybe even quite equally. The only main difference being that the one example is 'only' a guest on MSNBC and not the head of the democratic party.

And I only mentioned the entire left because you said the left is labeling republicans terrorists and this is why you will never trust the left. A bit of a broad generalization, imho.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 06:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yep, and I wish some other posters came to agree with that. But only a few will, if even. Sadly, I feel for most liberal leaning people MSNBC is just part of their own team and you don't go after your own, a trend visible on both sides.

In that sense, I even, in contradiction to what I said before, have a tendency of making the right responsible for the deeds of radicals (like, imho, Trump) as long as they do not distance themselves. Which, imho, these days the right does not do. But that is a critizism that indeed can be applied to both sides, and maybe even quite equally. The only main difference being that the one example is 'only' a guest on MSNBC and not the head of the democratic party.

And I only mentioned the entire left because you said the left is labeling republicans terrorists and this is why you will never trust the left. A bit of a broad generalization, imho.

That's a fair point, and an overly broad generalization from me.  Honestly, I just found the statement jaw droppingly awful and it clearly colored my reaction.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(05-18-2022, 10:05 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: I think it’s more sarcastically playing by the rules set by leftists than crying about anything, but I guess that’s for SSF to say.

Actually, It was a shot at him because he will regularly deflect or divert the discussion when he sees a topic he doesn't want discussed, often with whataboutism, thus the crybaby reference. So instead of questioning my example as to why Abrams felt cheated out of the election, he diverted with whataboutism. 

(05-18-2022, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:


You'll have to forgive him.  Subtlety and nuance are beyond his ken.  

I'm sorry. Did I not nuance correctly?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2022, 08:00 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Actually, It was a shot at him because he will regularly deflect or divert the discussion when he sees a topic he doesn't want discussed, often with whataboutism, thus the crybaby reference. So instead of questioning my example as to why Abrams felt cheated out of the election, he diverted with whataboutism. 
I'm sorry. Did I not nuance correctly?

From what I've seen of your posts you don't do anything correctly.  But that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.