Trump on numerous times has called for the expansion of the death penalty. I agree with him. That is the only way to prevent a Presidential election from being illegally overturned again.
Let’s face it, MAGA voters are stupid
Posts
Total:
234
-->
@Double_R
Then I don't know what your point is.
You are not keeping up. Perhaps it is because you are jumping into a “discussion” (in quotes because what is occurring in this thread essentially fails to rise to that level) whose origins you aren’t fully cognizant of. Are you able to pinpoint where and how this line of posting got started? I could spell it out for your convenience, but I have a feeling you would nonetheless refuse to take it onboard…
Looking back you did start off when you presented the list as stories citing them as having turned out to be false, but when IWR responded telling you none of them were lies you never corrected his critique making clear that this was not what you were alleging.
You simply don’t get it, even after I explained this to you earlier. Chalk it up to selective comprehension, I suppose. *sigh* To spell it out: I see Rosie as basically a troll and spammer, so you really must accept that I will not always be responding to everything at all times in tit for tat fashion, nor in super serious, reverential tones. You seem to mistake silence for having no thoughts on the matter— two VERY different things! If you draw a hasty conclusion from silence (“making clear that this was not what you were alleging”), that is you making overly confident and mistaken assumptions, as per usual.
Now that you mention his response, I will say that Rosie did move the goalposts a bit there. He went from asking for 5 stories which turned out to be false to saying “none of those examples were lies.” A narrative which turned out to be false, and a narrative consisting of known, premeditated lies are two very different things!
-->
@Double_R
“9. ICE whipping migrants”
There were instances of this.
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently false:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/08/patrol-agents-on-horseback-did-not-whip-migrants-but-used-forced-and-inappropriate-language-investigators-say-00044763
So, when you previously claimed “most” of my examples failed in your view, you really meant “all.” Odd that you felt the need to sugarcoat the totality of your disagreement. You gave me false hope, man!
-->
@cristo71
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently false:
That take would be analogous to police beating rioters with their shields as the rioters threw themselves at the police...
Some pretty hot takes to get a desired narrative these days...
-->
@Greyparrot
There is a big difference between intentional deception and wanting, at some level, a certain thing to be true which is later learned to be untrue. I, and I think you as well, are talking about the latter. It’s simply human nature to be susceptible to these biases. I know Denzel wasn’t saying precisely this, but I see it as another side of the same die, if you will. I don’t think he would disagree.
-->
@cristo71
Denzel's point was that we as the public, expect the media to be true, but instead, corporate media strives to be first (corporate profits)
So what are we expected to do? Not watch corporate media and be uninformed, or watch it and be misinformed?
I think Denzel also missed the very real government influence on corporate media as government gets to pull the regulatory strings that create the media kabuki dance.
So it's more than an issue of being first. It's also an issue of compliance. Nowhere is this more evident than the current unanimous declaration of acts of questioning the government to be criminal and seditions acts.
Denzel's point was that we as the public, expect the media to be true, but instead, corporate media strives to be first (corporate profits)
And as I said before, that’s nonsense. Credible news outlets have rigid procedures for reporting breaking news.
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, and in the rush to be first, gaps are sometimes filled by unverified information or assumptions the journalist in question wishes were true or believes to be true on some level.
-->
@cristo71
But the compliance problem with corporate media is real. Check out this blooper from America's most trusted network..
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like he just gave away who the “sources” were. Oops. No doubt, people who work for the government leak to the media. Leaks are not the same as a demand for compliance, though. What sway government has over the free press is a very blurry area. I do think the media in general have genuine shame over the bandwagon toward war with Iraq, but that’s a whole other can of worms…
-->
@Double_R
1. Nick Sandmann as white supremacistDon't know who this is so I'll have to pass on this one
It was a baseless claim. In the media you no doubt frequent they prefix "baseless and false" to claims of election fraud, presumably because to them baseless = false.
Therefore according to the standards of CNN this is a false claim. False += 1
2. Rittenhouse as gun trafficking, murderous white supremacistHe killed two people and was probably a white supremacist. Understand that white supremecy means something very different to minorities and especially black people than it does to white people.
Well white supremacist means something different to me, I say you're a white supremacist. Give me a fucking break. He was cleared of murder, even if he wasn't it was self-defense and that is not murder. He did not traffic guns, he was given a gun at location. TRIPLE FAIL
Baseless and false.
F = 1
F += 1
3. Policeman later died after fire extinguisher beating on January 6They did.
Everyone Biden ever sniffed is going to die later.
Pathetic excuse for the false claim that a police officer was killed by the Jan 6 mob.
F = 2
F += 1
4. Governor Cuomo is a great, great governorOpinion
It is too imprecise to evaluate, but if not killing your elderly is a requirement to be a great governor he fails.
5. Michael Avenatti could become presidentOpinion, and one that could could have seemed plausible to some at the time
It's true.
T += 1
6. Steele Dossier as legit intelligenceIt was every bit as legit as most of the reporting took it for
False, it was reported as evidence instead of "baseless false conspiracy theories". That is the established way to report hearsay accusations without hard evidence (if there was no double standard)
F = 3
F += 1
7. Law enforcement cleared protestors for Trump’s photo opThey did
They did not, they cleared it because they were about to burn down a church. There is no evidence Trump ordered anything of the sort. "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 4
F += 1
8. Laptop not a legit story (WaPo was actually on the correct side of this one)The MSM worked with the best information they had at the time.
Uh huh, the deep state lackeys come crawling out of the wood work and are given absolute trust. The right-tribe equivalent would be reporting
"We have claims that Trump had classified documents, but several Jan 6 protestors have signed a letter saying that has all the hallmarks of misinformation so we're not going to report it."
9. ICE whipping migrantsThere were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.
You have no idea if it happened even once. There was one picture and it had reins not a whip. "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 5
F += 1
10. Lab leak theory as “conspiracy theory”This is a misinterpretation of what was widely being covered. The lab leak theory was prevalent among the conspiracy theorists when the evidence was not clear (it still isn't).
Ironic, it is a conspiracy theory; simply one that has become convenient for the deep state as they prepare to lander money through conflict over Taiwan.
It was reported as "baseless false conspiracy theories". That reporting is by the standards of the press now "baseless false conspiracy theories"
F = 6
F += 1
11. “Don’t Say Gay” bill in FloridaIt's not a literal criticism, "don't say gay" is a description of the laws chilling effects, which is accurate.
Yet they didn't call the recent firearms control act the "we're coming for your guns bill". Weird.
12. Inflation as “transitory”Not aware of who was saying this but this sounds like a failed prediction, not a lie.
Yes
13. Columbus police shot an “unarmed” Ma’Khia BryantDon't know who this was, but this sounds like an example of working with incomplete information in the early stages of a story.
That's kinda the point. They assume what they want, publish, if they retract at all it's a little tiny thing nobody ever notices. Net result is that all the sheeple still believe it. You know, like the idea that dominion voting machines changed vote totals even in counties with paper backups.
F = 7
F += 1
14. CRT is not taught in grade schoolsIt's not
It is, it's not called CRT but it is the propaganda CRT advises. This is like saying "scientific racism" isn't taught in schools and then teaching white supremacy. "Oh but don't try to explain genetics, we just tell them they're superior to the beast races" GTFO
F = 8
F += 1
15. Anti lockdown protestors neglect to wear masks; BLM protestors need not wear masks (not a lie but glaring double standard)It's kind of odd to complain about the attention being paid to a lack of masks at an anti mask rally (where obviously no one is wearing a mask) vs a protest against excessive police force where many if not most are wearing masks.
Thou dost red herring. The double standard exists when the same source contradicts apparent principle, not when different sources contradict each other.
F = 9
F += 1
16. BLM protests are “mostly peaceful”They were, just like most of the J6 protesters were peaceful.
True, and this wouldn't be a false claim if they had reported the J6 protest + riot as mostly peaceful so:
F = 10
F += 1 = 11
11/16 false (or more specifically only true given severe double standards)
-->
@cristo71
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently false
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips, twirling them around as they threaten to whip them, and in at least one instance shows an ICE agent swinging it by a migrants head as that migrant whips (no pun intended) his head back and falls to the ground. The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.
Fast forward a few weeks or months and some of those very agents were disciplined for their behavior, but according to an internal investigation, they found that no migrants were actually whipped. In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so (I somehow doubt you would ever accept that from the Biden administration).
But ok, being that I am actually intellectually honest (unlike those who tend to accuse me otherwise) I would accept the reports findings as the best explanation. So now what? What's the takeaway here?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
See previous post to Cristo71. If you want to discuss this pick one, and be sure to tell me what point you think your example proves.
-->
@FLRW
....." People working on all four criminal prosecutions of Trump, including judges, grand jurors and prosecutors, have received threats from his supporters amid an onslaught of inflammatory rhetoric from the former president.
...Officials in Georgia are investigating threats against grand jurors who worked on the Fulton County racketeering indictment of Trump and 18 allies over an alleged conspiracy to change the state’s 2020 election results."....
MAGA = unnecessary threats against those who seek democracy, i.e.MAGA trys to destroy democracy to establish their personal rule of law, not USA laws.
MAGA = sic-n-head.
MAGA = sic-n-head.
-->
@Double_R
In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so… I would accept the reports findings as the best explanation.
Hmm… this is known in certain parlance as “speaking with forked tongue.” Aka not entirely convincing.
What's the takeaway here?
See posts 11-13, 74, 95, and 98
If you fail to see any point here, what compels you to participate?
-->
@Double_R
*SMH* I was actually hoping that this would at least be one area of common ground because this one is just patently falseOk, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips, twirling them around as they threaten to whip them, and in at least one instance shows an ICE agent swinging it by a migrants head as that migrant whips (no pun intended) his head back and falls to the ground.
Where is this video? I've never seen it. The only video I've ever seen was of split reins with 2-3ft spare being windmilled to keep separation.
Some relevant physics: a whip isn't just a strip of material, the linear density needs to continuously decrease from base to tip to convert impulses to very high speeds. It's the high speeds that cause pain.
The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.
Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports (especially headlines and the first paragraph, usually by the last paragraph they will have admitted the facts and rendered the first part and headline dishonest propaganda)
In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so
I don't know that ICE didn't whip any migrants. I don't know that they're not aliens in human form serving the sun god Amun Ra. I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.
Don't be ridiculous "We don't know that what the liars said isn't true in some way we have no evidence for", appeal to ignorance. Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".
(I somehow doubt you would ever accept that from the Biden administration).
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.
-->
@cristo71
See posts 11-13, 74, 95, and 98If you fail to see any point here, what compels you to participate?
I guess I was giving you too much credit by assuming you took the time to recall and post all of those examples as a way of saying something more than 'Sometimes journalists get things wrong'.
-->
@Double_R
Oh, I learned quite awhile back that I, or anyone really, have little to no influence over the sort of conclusions you arrive at or assumptions you make… make that absolutely no influence. Hence, the tone of resignation in post 71 which was my initial answer to your query.
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips, twirling them around as they threaten to whip them, and in at least one instance shows an ICE agent swinging it by a migrants head as that migrant whips (no pun intended) his head back and falls to the ground. The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.
How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.
The reason the story gained traction on the left had nothing to do with whether they were whips or split reins, it gained traction because of the conduct of the ice agents.
This is yet another example of political pundits seizing on any factual inaccuracy they can find within a story in order to pretend the entire story and everything about it that actually matters should be disregarded. It's a tired dishonest tactic.
Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM. You just assert it followed by using bad examples like this to back it up.
Moreover, your logic here is does not follow. The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.
Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".
It's called the burden of proof. If you're claiming the election was stolen, the burden is on you to prove it. In the absence of such evidence we are logically forced to take the default position, that the election results as counted and verified by all of the states is accurate.
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.
The basis is because the alternative is to assert a massive nationwide conspiracy that to this day has evaded all detection. That fails the basic Occam's razor test.
-->
@Double_R
I do know that the propaganda department of the deep state showed video of split reins spinning, called them whips, and millions of left-tribe sheep believe them as they always do. That's the point.The reason the story gained traction on the left had nothing to do with whether they were whips or split reins, it gained traction because of the conduct of the ice agents.This is yet another example of political pundits seizing on any factual inaccuracy they can find within a story in order to pretend the entire story and everything about it that actually matters should be disregarded. It's a tired dishonest tactic.
You mean like when they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because one or two asserted some falsehoods?
I agree it's a tired dishonest tactic. BTW the "actions of the ICE agents" was hilariously non-aggressive for people defending a national border from trespassers. That would get you killed in almost any other time and place in human history.
Literally trying to block their way with horses, and the migrants just walk around. That's a joke. Calling it cruel or inappropriately aggressive is clown-world.
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM.
Back to the scope switching fallacy huh?
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".
The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.
Bla bla bla, excuses for fake news. New information fine, new assertions: dismissed. That's what happens when you cry wolf.
Lack of evidence is literally the only reason to deny the claims of election fraud and it's hasn't stopped a single left-tribe pundit, propagandist, or government official from calling the election fraud claims "false" or "debunked".It's called the burden of proof. If you're claiming the election was stolen, the burden is on you to prove it.
Except if your a left-tibe news source claiming migrants were whipped. Then it's on everyone to prove that no migrant was ever whipped. Your words:
"In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so"
That's not a hypothetical, that is the entire basis for claiming the election was secure. The people who would be held responsible if it wasn't assured us it was.The basis is because the alternative is to assert a massive nationwide conspiracy that to this day has evaded all detection. That fails the basic Occam's razor test.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test. You are throwing a red herring.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us so
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You mean like when they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because one or two asserted some falsehoods?
No, they act like every election lawsuit was frivolous because they were all based on the idea that the election was stolen, which there is no evidence for and the people filling these lawsuits know that.
You have yet to show any example of wide spread lying or egregious double standards within MSM.Back to the scope switching fallacy huh?
Responding to your assertion that the media lies and uses egregious double standards by pointing out that you have provided no examples of it - is not a scope switching fallacy.
If you aren't prepared to stand by your points then don't make them.
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".
Again, it was a response to your assertion of wide spread lying and double standards.
Beyond that, the reason I ask you to focus on one is because then you get to pick the best example. If your best example fails under focused scrutiny, it stands to reason that the rest will likely fail. It's a basic test of whether your claim has any validity. If you stand by your claims one would figure you would welcome that.
The credibility of a news report is not determined by the mere fact that it is a news report, it's determined by the credibility of its sources and the validity of its cumulative picture. You have to think in order to figure that out, not just shut your brain down and not allow any new information in because you don't like where it's coming from or what it concludes.Bla bla bla, excuses for fake news.
I know, those dang excuses about how we have to apply critical thinking. What a nuisance.
Except if your a left-tibe news source claiming migrants were whipped. Then it's on everyone to prove that no migrant was ever whipped. Your words:"In other words, we now know ICE didn't whip any migrants because ICE told us so"
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim. The evidence of migrants being whipped (or whatever you prefer to call it) was provided. Once that burden had been meet, it now shifts back to you to explain why the evidence is either invalid or not strong enough to justify a "preponderance of the evidence" conclusion.
This is basic stuff, and is how all claims (left tribe or right tribe) are justified while removing bias as much reasonably possible. Your inability to understand how this works is not an argument for hypocrisy.
I also find it telling that you keep pointing out my sentence while cutting off the part where I explained that in spite of this, I accept ICE's findings. Next time, read the entire exchange.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test.
There is no universe in which one person can pull off a nation wide conspiracy in a system that is compartmentalized by design. You are just showing yourself to be unserious.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us so
Because the election officials in every state along with the people who counted the ballots, the supervisors they worked under, the officials they reported to, the officials tasked with verifying their results, the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud, the judges tasked with hearing the challenges, the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome, and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... Told us so. And because the alternative would have required a significant number of them to be involved in a fraud conspiracy against their own interests.
Google Occam's razor.
-->
@cristo71
There was never any whip involved. It was a horseman's equivilent to a riot shield.
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe they were “rat tails”? When properly made and snapped, those can really smart!
-->
@Double_R
When there was a list you said "focus on one" when I focused on one, you said "it's not widespread".Again, it was a response to your assertion of wide spread lying and double standards.
I provided 11 examples, the list; the immediate context was going into the details of one of those examples. In that immediate context you start denying there is a wider pattern as a way to excuse the specific example.
I could give the 11 examples again, you would say "nah uh none of those are examples, for instance [starts talking about specific example]" I point out how the specific example is misinformation/false by the standards applied to narratives promoted by the propagandist and you'll go "oh there is no pattern though"
It's a big circle and I'm not following you around it.
If your best example fails under focused scrutiny
Which it most certainly did not.
Conspiracy size as small as one. Doesn't fail any test.There is no universe in which one person can pull off a nation wide conspiracy
There are muggings throughout the nation, but they are not a nationwide conspiracy.
The claims of security are (in your own phrasing): We now know the elections were secure because election officials told us soBecause the election officials in every state along with the people who counted the ballots, the supervisors they worked under, the officials they reported to, the officials tasked with verifying their results, the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud, the judges tasked with hearing the challenges, the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome, and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... Told us so.
Nice speech, problem is it's meaningless. Like citing laws against murder in Nazi Germany and then listing all the courts and police stations which would have to do nothing in order for the holocaust to happen.
people who counted the ballots -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulent
the supervisors they worked under -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulent
the officials they reported to -> could only check with the people who counted the ballots
the officials tasked with verifying their results -> could only check with the officials the ballot counters were reporting to (or the machines that counted the ballots and had no way of detecting fraudulent ones) and thus could not possibly fulfill their task
the officials tasked with investigating allegations of fraud ->were few, obstructed, demonized, and in no way capable of quantifying much less punishing the fraud
the judges tasked with hearing the challenges ->in almost every case dismissed on legal nonsense excuses like 'standing', as if there is a single citizen in the United States of America who isn't harmed by losing our democratic system; the rest of the cases they ignored blatant evidence because they refused to apply statistical projection and instead proceeded upon the laughable and cowardly premise that "if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen", which could best be analogized as finding $15 on the ground after a bank robbery and assuming that's how much was stolen and no harm was done because it was returned to the vault.
the secretaries of state responsible for the outcome -> could only go on what supervisors told them, and certainly did have more to lose by admitting the system was insecure than the alternative regardless of party since it was their job (among others) to keep the system secure.
and the governors who signed off on them - who in many if not most cases were republicans who would have been acting against their own interests to do so fraudulently... -> based on the indictments right now it doesn't look like they would have served their own interests very well by standing in the way of the deep state narrative.
And because the alternative would have required a significant number of them to be involved in a fraud conspiracy against their own interests.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.
Even the ones who paved the way for the fraud need not have known the purpose of their actions, they could have legitimately have believed they were "just handling an emergency" or "preventing voter suppression" or some such nonsense. Somebody knew though or it would never have been so well funded and planned. Much like "voter ID is racist", some people are stupid enough to believe that; but such a stupid idea could not possibly have come into existence or been maintained without the intent of fraud at the root.
-->
@Greyparrot
The media is basically a cartel at this point lol
-->
@ILikePie5
It's what happens in a fascist country where the government controls and regulates capitalist media.
Correction: Of course they have signatures on file, how else could they verify?
Stupid of me, even my subconscious falls for the propaganda sometimes.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I'll bet you have a lapel flower that squirts water.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Never mind that everyone heard and saw Trump commit these crimes in plain site for everyone to see
and joe biden is obviously a god damned saint
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"
bingo