-->
@cristo71
only right wing media values profits over truthfulness.
I accept your concession.
Let’s face it, MAGA voters are stupid
Posts
Total:
234
-->
@Best.Korea
I can only accept an “Amen!”
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
do you believe the elections in Stalin's Russia were legitimate? YES or NO?Your question was whether I thought it was comparable, the answer was: YES.Was it legitimate? NO
Please explain in detail how you arrived at this conclusion without trusting what others told you.
So, once again: they put the lie in the headline, they put the propaganda in the first couple paragraphs, and then; to cover their ass they put the facts at the end (where no sheep read to), but hey not everyone does that anymore either...So... William Nelson died before the election. He was a dead voter. Dead voter confirmed...Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....Dead voter confirmed...Fraud confirmed...Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....You may now proceed to the sheeplike and obtuse pretense of being unaware of the fundamental theorem of statistics by saying something like "but four examples don't make up for 18,000 votes!".
It never ceases to amaze me how election deniers think showing a handful of examples of fraud disproves the narrative that this was a fair and secure election. I also find it amusing how unsophisticated your views are that you really think this gives reason for you to keep believing "sheeple like me" aren't reading the entire article... As if the handful of examples the article found prove your point. It doesn't. At all. That's why they included it.
There will always be some examples of the extraordinary given enough opportunities, so extremely rare occurrences become statistical certainties with a high enough denominator. A national election where close to 200 million ballots were cast certainly qualifies.
You pretend to know something about statistics but appear ignorant on how the law of large numbers works.
The claim is not nor has it ever been that fraud in US elections is totally nonexistent. The claim is that it is no where near widespread enough to conceivably alter the results. The tiny handful of examples found in an election seperated by 12k votes - considered a nailbiter - only supports that assertion.
The ballots are real, the fraud is that the same people fill out multiple ballots.
Prove it. Justify this claim with actual evidence and data, then perhaps we can see which one of us is just mindlessly parroting what the propagandists told us.
-->
@Double_R
It never ceases to amaze me how election deniers think showing a handful of examples of fraud disproves the narrative that this was a fair and secure election.
It was your source
YOU SAID:
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.
Now you claim four examples are meaningless.
You said
your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked.
and now you fall back to "only a few examples, doesn't add up"; but even I didn't predict how savagely you would contradict yourself.
Get THE FUCK out of here with your dishonesty.
I'm done with you until you can admit your hypocrisy here.
-->
@Double_R
@ADreamOfLiberty
Good show ADOL!!!!
Oh look D_R, another intelligent person like myself calling out your bullshit hypocritical denialist double speak.
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a less than intelligent or not intellectually curious person would accept the notion that it is valid to dismiss the indictments on the basis of any previously held belief about corporate media.You mean the Corporate media cartel talking endlessly about an insurrection that happened 3 years ago with no indictments for insurrection? I agree.You would have to be an absolute genius to riddle that one out.
Perhaps they felt they had to cover it because 300 million Americans watched it on TV.
-->
@cristo71
If the various media headlines said, “Border patrol agents twirl [or wave] their reins at migrants” then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. No, media felt the need to evoke American slave era imagery instead. That is clickbait and provocative rhetoric rather than good reporting. We are at an impasse.
Yes, we are at an impasse, because your reason for objecting to the reporting here really just comes down to insulting everyone who took issue with what they saw with their own eyes.
I agree with you that the word "whip" was probably used because it garners more attention, but it garners more attention because as I already explained, there is a colloquial usage of the word that fits here to describe the conduct of the agents in question. People know what "agents whipping migrants" would look like, and it's exactly what the video appears to show. The purpose of language is to communicate, using a term most people don't understand is not communicating. You can call that click bait, but calling that a lie is nonsense.
Throughout our entire conversation, not once have I bothered to Google "split reins", I have never heard of them before this thread. Yet also take note that I continue to use the word because I couldn't care less what the tool they are using was called, the word being used is not why the story mattered.
You insult anyone who was bothered by this by pretending people didn't see the video with their own eyes and reach their own conclusions about the agents behaviour. As if someone just said "whip" and everyone lost their mind as they waited to be told what to feel next. That's just plain stupid.
It doesn't matter where their outage is coming from or whether you consider it valid, the fact that people are triggered by certain images is a separate issue from whether media outlets are being deceptive via their techinally incorrect usage of a single word. In this case they weren't.
-->
@Double_R
If its okay to spank children, it is okay to spank migrants. The only thing that migrants understand is pow pow.
-->
@Double_R
Does “ACAB” mean anything to you? Preconceived biases (they are what people bring with them, in this case, to a clickbait headline story) are a thing, and too many people lack discernment. Even more unfortunate, VP Harris is chief among them.
Unsurprisingly, you are framing this in two opposing ways simultaneously, depending upon which is more convenient at a point in time. You claim to accept the findings of the investigation which concluded that no whipping occurred. You also claim that video evidence shows whipping occurring. How you handle the cognitive dissonance, I can only speculate. From your demonstrated MO, one plausibility is that you don’t actually believe one of those opposing claims. Which one? It’s a 50/50 chance at this point…
-->
@cristo71
Maybe there are two dimensions, one where whipping occured and one where it didnt.
-->
@Best.Korea
You are SO close! And I don’t even mean that sarcastically. Stay tuned…
-->
@cristo71
Which one? It’s a 50/50 chance at this point…
Hmm...moral flexibility...
There's an argument to be made that evil thrives when morals are flexible enough to allow for it.
Perhaps they felt they had to cover it because 300 million Americans watched it on TV.
Yeah, about as honestly as they did the “mostly peaceful” riots of 2020 that caused over 2 billion $$ in damages across the entire nation, which included the loss of several innocent lives that were barely mentioned (unless it was about Rittenhouse, but the lives he took weren’t innocent, and they were white but the media spun it as though they were black and made it a racial issue).
-->
@Greyparrot
“By any means necessary.”
-->
@cristo71
I am currently listening to a Jordan Peterson talk, and he is just casually stating that America has been split 50/50 for a very long time. I had to take pause and ask myself why that was the case. Is that a case of the natural human condition or a designed system to keep the people engaged in a conflict with no real meaning and no end?
talking endlessly about an insurrection that happened 3 years ago with no indictments for insurrection?
Ya, huge difference between insurrection and seditious conspiracy, just huge.
Ya, huge difference between insurrection and seditious conspiracy, just huge.
Yes, according to the "trusted" media. None of the corporate system media reported on a seditious conspiracy. It was Insurrection 24/7.
Good point as usual. And I approve.
-->
@cristo71
“By any means necessary.”
Maybe there are a few situations where moral flexibility can lead to positive outcomes for society. It seems more often today that moral flexibility is exploited for personal gain at the expense of others' well-being. It also creates an environment where evil can thrive. You would think a strong and consistent ethical framework, along with critical thinking and empathy would be the go-to way to prevent the flourishing of most evil actions. Equality under the law is the basis of this philosophy.
-->
@Greyparrot
Care to cite that? I would generally agree. I mean, I would have seen the Civil War at the time as pretty much an outright failure of our constitutional government. We have always had basically 2 parties, but they have always been rooted in post Enlightenment classical liberalism. Alas, an anti liberal undercurrent has been gaining momentum for decades now. George Floyd’s murder has really been a catalyst for it. But that… is a whole other can of worms…
-->
@cristo71
Care to cite that?
Cite what part? Sorry I was kind of rambling my thoughts.
Ya, huge difference between insurrection and seditious conspiracy, just huge.
And no one has been charged with sedition either.
-->
@Greyparrot
The JP talk
I am currently listening to a Jordan Peterson talk,
Don’t you have a job?. Around here teachers are very busy at the start of a new school year
-->
@cristo71
Oh... JP wasn't actually discussing the nature of the 50/50 split. He just casually offhandedly mentioned it. I was just thinking philosophically about it.
I agree that earlier splits still had a unifying element of classical liberalism, but it seems that while earlier political splits pandered to the nature of man's simplified thinking of issues (as our brains are wired to naturally discard grey ideas), as well as the nature of a winner take all system, it has gotten much worse today for 2 reasons I think.
1) Promoting and framing a 50/50 split on issues helps politicians raise more money and gain more voter turnout, as money is an increasingly crucial part of maintaining political power today.
2) Promoting and framing a 50/50 split on issues helps modern corporate media to drive profits and audience size, especially among the uneducated.
Don’t you have a job?. Around here teachers are very busy at the start of a new school year
Lol, stop worrying about strangers on the internet. It's really unhealthy for your mental well being.
Lol, stop worrying about strangers on the internet. It's really unhealthy for your mental well being.
Yup, that’s what I expected. Real teachers are very busy right now. Pretend teachers have time to post 100 times a day on the internet and listen to right wing wack job radio shows.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
YOU SAID:Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.Now you claim four examples are meaningless.
This is like arguing that 4 strands of hey is greater than 1 entire hey stack, because 4 > 1.
The number of examples provided is no where near as important as the quality or weight of those examples. This is basic common sense.
Moreover, by comparing your "examples" to mine, you are engaging in an egregious category error. The 4 examples you gave were literally a subset of my one example.
What I provided was a report about an entire investigation that proved the overwhelming majority of these allegations is false. That is a meaningful rebuttal.
What you provided are the literal 4 examples found in a system where about 5 million votes were cast of dead voters, all four of them cast by family members carrying out their loved ones wishes, not part of some nefarious scheme. That is not meaningful given the claim.
Do you understand why finding only 4 examples of dead voters in a state where about 5 million votes were cast works against your claim? Do you understand basic math and statistics?
-->
@TWS1405_2
Good show ADOL!!!!Oh look D_R, another intelligent person like myself calling out your bullshit hypocritical denialist double speak.
Please tell me what part of;
4 confirmed dead people voting > an entire statewide investigation finding only 4 dead voters
Did you find convincing?
-->
@Double_R
YOU SAID:Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless.Now you claim four examples are meaningless.This is like arguing that 4 strands of hey is greater than 1 entire hey stack, because 4 > 1.
No it's like saying 4 stalks of hay are more than one stalk.
The number of examples provided is no where near as important as the quality or weight of those examples. This is basic common sense.
"Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless."
Moreover, by comparing your "examples" to mine, you are engaging in an egregious category error. The 4 examples you gave were literally a subset of my one example.
Stuff your sophistry somewhere else.
What I provided was a report about an entire investigation that proved the overwhelming majority of these allegations is false.
You provided an article sumerizing claims. The statistics of the article looks like this:
4 cases of fraud + dead voter
1 case of mistaken identity, not dead voter
4/5 fraud 1/5 false positive
20% false allegations vs 80% true allegations. THE INVERSE OF MAJORITY FALSE, MAJORITY TRUE
I don't know how I fooled myself into thinking you could be reasoned with up till this point. I should have seen the signs that you're too far gone.
What you provided are the literal 4 examples found in a system where about 5 million votes were cast of dead voters
You provided, YOUR SOURCE
4/ 5million URRRRRH fake, that assumes your source infallibly discovered the truth behind every apparent dead voter. FALSE
all four of them cast by family members carrying out their loved ones wishes, not part of some nefarious scheme.
Voter fraud is a nefarious scheme. Remember when you thought you proved Trump was nefarious because he didn't carry out a quid pro quo he denies ever making? What does lying about the dead guy filling out the ballot say to you?
That is not meaningful given the claim.
"Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless."
Do you understand why finding only 4 examples of dead voters in a state where about 5 million votes were cast works against your claim?
I finally understand that you don't believe your own lies. No one is too stupid to figure out that 1/5 != overwhelming majority. If not stupidity, malice.
Do you understand basic math and statistics?
Shove your gaslighting where the sun don't shine. 4 > 1.
MAGA now stands for "My Ass Got Arrested".