Media Bias

[BarnettNewman]

Oh? I guess that'll be submitted with all the evidence.

Did you see the video, released later, which showed the fuller context of the arrest?

Why do you think Floyd was having such trouble breathing, and asked to be laid on the ground? It surprises me how many regular media outlets didn't mention that in their coverage.

You don't think they fear a Kafka trap, do you?

Why are you trying to justify the killing of an unarmed citizen in police custody? Is it to perhaps suggest that people should not have been overly troubled or concerned by the event?

I'm not trying to justify his death, just because I'm not willing to call it a killing before the court does.

Plus everyone involved is already fucked or dead. I'm most worried that any result will mean more rioting.

The rioting was a very small proportion of the unprecedented amount of concern expressed by the general public. Why are you defining that expression of public concern only in terms of rioting? Is it perhaps to suggest that the people who took to the streets had no legitimate reason to be there?

Protesters wanted Chauvin to face justice (if I imagine their actions as reasonable)

He was arrested.

Then they went after 'defund the police', and 'ACAB'.

I know what happened in Montreal in the 70's, when the cops stopped policing. Do you know how long it took for crime to spike? Any guesses?

Because the status quo or not doing anything at all are the only options.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Joe]

I'm not trying to justify his death, just because I'm not willing to call it a killing before the court does.

A noble attitude indeed. Pity you don't apply it to claims about the so called stolen election.

Just because I consider evidence, and examples of courts not reviewing evidence, doesn't mean I said it was stolen.

Really? What examples of evidence do you have of evidence that was ruled inadmissible?

[Cunt]

I think your view on it is too confident for the evidence available, but I don't doubt you know WAY more than me.

My confidence is lower, especially because of what the courts have declined to hear, but I understand you are super-confident.

Amazon should ban all discussion of doubt, to increase voter confidence in the outcome being legitimate. It might even be more convincing if lots of wealthy corporations all act in concert to remove all discussion of doubt.

Don't worry though, I won't misrepresent your views on this. You go ahead and say things I haven't said, or insist I must have a position because you 'logicked it', I don't expect it will be a problem for you.

And Joe, it only matters that the courts decided not to look at the evidence. If you wanted to know what they really declined to look at (rather than trying to score a point against me or put me into a position I don't have) you would have checked by now. (the SCOTUS declined to look on process, saying nothing about any evidence)

If, however, you just wanted to remove any discussion of doubt, just push anyone expressing doubt into an extreme view, which you then can ridicule.

It's a transparent tactic, but works very well anyway.

Except on me. I know what I believe.

To me, the only people expressing such sudden confidence in elections (either the 'My Pillow Guy' way, or the 'Chuck Shumer' way) are pretty plainly overconfident. Probably for the same reasons, actually.

Especially since there was no such confidence in the 2016 election, from one side

Do you think they are indirectly suggesting that Trump, in a really big win, fixed the election process so that it couldn't be stolen anymore...?

[Sean Hayden]

That is really difficult to parse.

[Sean Hayden]

Joe asked:

What examples of evidence do you have of evidence that was ruled inadmissible?

From previous posts I gather that the source of Cunt's doubt is as follows:

1. An apparent discrepancy between Biden's popularity and his ability to inspire people, and the number of votes he got.

2. A number of volunteers who have said there were irregularities.

3. Whistle blowers who have claimed that votes were thrown out.

If there is more to it I'm just not remembering it. All of these things have been addressed in detail, with supporting evidence, and reasoning. It is fine to continue to believe them. Sometimes stubbornly refusing someone's reasoning and evidence is good. The best thing to do in my opinion would be to address the reasoning and evidence provided against his position.

But that isn't what Cunt does.

your view on it is too confident

I understand you are super-confident

Amazon should ban all discussion of doubt, to increase voter confidence in the outcome being legitimate. It might even be more convincing if lots of wealthy corporations all act in concert to remove all discussion of doubt.

If, however, you just wanted to remove any discussion of doubt, just push anyone expressing doubt into an extreme view, which you then can ridicule.

It's a transparent tactic, but works very well anyway.

--and the best part--

Except on me. I know what I believe.

--the victim

asshole; called out; victim --it's a one trick show

[Cunt]

Thanks, Sean. Can you be more specific?

I think confidence in either direction is a red flag that I might be hearing politics, not facts.

The deliberate censorship around this election issue might seem reasonable, until you compare it to the last election. Confidence in this election might sound reasonable, until you consider how confident everyone was with the 2016 one.

I think there was fraud. I saw Crowder hunt down some, and put it on display. I'm sure everyone interested in the election, and it's security also saw it.

One example, he visited an address of the voter roll, showed that it was a false address (under a bridge). Next, he found that the state had corrected the voter roll for that address, so he investigated it again, found that the new address was also false, then called to interview the state officials in charge.

Of COURSE it doesn't matter, because he's a comedian and a kind of insulting one. Unless he was honest, then it is clear vote fraud.

How many should there be, before it is 'important'?

And Joe, I know you are but what am I?

[Sean Hayden]

Thanks, Sean. Can you be more specific?

Sure. Take point 1 from above.

1. Biden's inability to inspire people is offset by Trump's ability to inspire hate. Many people voted against Trump rather than for Biden. //--you insert counter here

--//--

Regarding the examples of fraud brought up by Crowder, I had brought up how difficult the job of deciding between actual fraud that would matter (a fake vote) and just a fake address would be. But the more important issue for us there is determining how much more of any real fraud occurred now vs during any other election. Was there a reason to believe more happened now than then? Crowder certainly didn't provide that.

Do we know if someone else isn't already responsible for uncovering more than Crowder did, but who's job it is to do so after every election, and therefore they didn't think anything of it? --just some guy thinking: Jesus Crowder, I can show you fraud!

--//--

You seem to enjoy these lines of reasoning. Have you considered tackling the conspiracy from the other side? It's very human and complicated as fuck. Assume Trump made it up. How did he get it going to the extent that he did? Why is it so hard to undo now that it's happened?

[Cunt]

Thanks, Sean. Can you be more specific?

Sure. Take point 1 from above.

1. Biden's inability to inspire people is offset by Trump's ability to inspire hate. Many people voted against Trump rather than for Biden. //--you insert counter here

--//--

I said it earlier, in a shittier way, that Trump IS the most popular president ever - because of how many people voted BECAUSE of him, not FOR him. (many anti-Trump votes were inspired by his hair alone)

Regarding the examples of fraud brought up by Crowder, I had brought up how difficult the job of deciding between actual fraud that would matter (a fake vote) and just a fake address. But the more important issue for us there is determining how much more of any real fraud occurred now vs during any other election. Was there a reason to believe more happened now than then? Crowder certainly didn't provide that.

He has been very careful about claims he makes, or so he says, because of how strict youtube et al are about any misstep.

They weren't as strict about calling Trump out for rigging an election...

Do we know if someone else isn't already responsible for uncovering more than Crowder did, but who's job it is to do so after every election, and therefore they didn't think anything of it? --just some guy thinking: Jesus Crowder, I can show you fraud!

--//--

Maybe, but the fact that a comic is the one bringing the best evidence forward is kind of weird.

Fucking Mayor Rudy, who SHOULD by all accounts be a very fucking good lawyer (he earned a bit of a name for himself) sells cigars and gold on a podcast...

Starting to think I should get some cigars.

You seem to enjoy these lines of reasoning. Have you considered tackling the conspiracy from the other side? It's very human and complicated as fuck. Assume Trump made it up. How did he get it going to the extent that he did? Why is it so hard to undo now that it's happened?

I think, if true, he used q (a bolder statement than I like about that slippery subject) to test run various facts, twisted into useable ways. Those successes (social study of which could be done by anyone, but the authors of the experiment would get the most out of it) led to firing up certain groups with the learned techniques, and as with the various Jesus conspiracies, they are resistant naturally, to falsification.

So yes, I've thought of it from the other side. When I started talking to you guys here about q, it isn't because I believed it, but because I found it so believable. I thought that the thing was significant, and speculated there were connections inside the white house.

Asking about it might get me tagged by some as a q believer, when all I really believe about it is that it was more significant than the notice it was getting at the time.

Now your turn - would you consider the conspiracy from the other side? Lets pretend that the wealthiest companies in history, got WAY wealthier as a result of the lockdown, and something sinister (like war profiteering but with pandemic) was the unsavoury way they got their win.

[Joe]

I think your view on it is too confident for the evidence available, but I don't doubt you know WAY more than me.

My confidence is lower, especially because of what the courts have declined to hear, but I understand you are super-confident.

Okay, I worded it poorly because I'm working. Let's try again.

What have the courts declined to hear?

[pErvinalia]

More people voted for, or against Trump, than voted for or against Biden.

[Cunt]

I think your view on it is too confident for the evidence available, but I don't doubt you know WAY more than me.

My confidence is lower, especially because of what the courts have declined to hear, but I understand you are super-confident.

Okay, I worded it poorly because I'm working. Let's try again.

What have the courts declined to hear?

Here's one...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 578884002/

I didn't think it was a secret.

[Joe]

I think your view on it is too confident for the evidence available, but I don't doubt you know WAY more than me.

My confidence is lower, especially because of what the courts have declined to hear, but I understand you are super-confident.

Okay, I worded it poorly because I'm working. Let's try again.

What have the courts declined to hear?

Here's one...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 578884002/

I didn't think it was a secret.

Sorry again, what evidence did the courts decline to hear?

[Cunt]

from the simple internet search...

KEY TAKEAWAYS
In some cases, state executive branch officials changed the rules; in others, judges made the changes. But under the U.S. Constitution, neither had the authority.

Thomas made the commonsense point: “Unclear rules threaten to undermine [the electoral system]."

The Supreme Court is giving state government officials free rein to make unauthorized changes in election rules and to override election laws.

See, maybe Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are not expert enough, but when they say 'should have been taken up', that means they were not.

Thomas also said that case didn't have enough going on to change the outcome, but that wasn't what you asked this time.

I have to wonder though, why ask ME of all people? Shouldn't you know MUCH better than I do, what concerns half-minus-one of SCOTUS expressed about their very public decision on this case?

[Joe]

from the simple internet search...

KEY TAKEAWAYS
In some cases, state executive branch officials changed the rules; in others, judges made the changes. But under the U.S. Constitution, neither had the authority.

Thomas made the commonsense point: “Unclear rules threaten to undermine [the electoral system]."

The Supreme Court is giving state government officials free rein to make unauthorized changes in election rules and to override election laws.

See, maybe Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are not expert enough, but when they say 'should have been taken up', that means they were not.

Thomas also said that case didn't have enough going on to change the outcome, but that wasn't what you asked this time.

I have to wonder though, why ask ME of all people? Shouldn't you know MUCH better than I do, what concerns half-minus-one of SCOTUS expressed about their very public decision on this case?

Cunt, that's not evidence of fraud. That's the Supremes refusing to hear a question about who has the power to change election rules because the case was moot. In fact, Thomas explicitly said it didn't affect this election.

What evidence of fraud did the courts decline to hear? After all, that is what you say you base your belief on.

[Cunt]

They declined to hear that case.

And I didn't say what I based my belief on, but it's ok for you to say anything about it you want. You are very convincing, just not to me.