Why Trump was rightfully impeached:
The difference is between a reasonable person who has always been reasonable and peaceful who one day in a speech says, "We have to fight for what we believe in..." THAT person is not inciting violence or engaging in dangerous speech.
But the man...
1. who has spent years ruthlessly attacking the press as an enemy of the people and with the false claims that they are fake news...
2. who has spent years lying about everything, from mundane matters to serious matters...
3. who has spent a year preparing his followers with the likelihood that "they" will try to "steal" the election and
4. then spent months repeating the dangerously false claim that the election was stolen and we have to "take back" our nation...
...THAT man in those circumstances is inciting violence when he gathers his followers in DC and tells them to be strong, to fight, to take back and to march down to the Capitol (where our free and fair presidential election was being certified) and stop them from "stealing" the election.
And the thing is, this has been predictable and it is why many rational people from across the political spectrum have been warning people about Trump since he first began running for office in 2015. It's why historians, military experts, generals, foreign affairs experts, mental health experts and countless regular people have been raising flags for years.
He began with dishonesty, false claims, attacks on the our heroes in the media (and make no mistake: We can not have a free nation without a decent free press), attacks on Democrats and even Republicans who disagree with him and get in his way. He began with divisive and racist language that emboldened white nationalists and anti-government types (they will tell you that themselves) and the dishonesty and divisiveness just increased over the years.
It was predictable and nearly inevitable that Trump's presidency would lead to this result and people have been raising that alert for years.
Let us hope that in the coming years we will begin to heal and rebuild NOT to where we were, but to some place better than where we were.
72 comments:
Let me be clear in terms you can understand, as you've used them often at the blogs of others: You're nothing but a inveterate fucking liar. No "lie" Trump has ever told is as egregious as those you've told in this post alone, to say nothing of most posts you've published. You tell lies of your own as well as lies of others.
Of course, with the current climate, you're more emboldened than ever to spew your hate against a president whose ass you're not fit to wipe, so low and vermin-like you are. Not surprised you provide a forum for your diaper-stain, feo. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
Just so we don't go on for a hundred comments with you saying nothing of consequence, I'm going to give you one chance and only one chance to point to any single false claim that I have made in this post.
If you can do that, and you can't, then we can take it from there. If you can't point to a single false claim that I've made in this post, and you can't, then you have shown yourself to be someone who is willing to make a false claim.
The fact is, Trump has spent five plus years attacking the Press calling them an enemy of the people and fake news. That's just observable reality. That one unending series of false claims from him alone is sufficient to recognize how unfit he is for office. If you can't point to a false claim that I have made, and certainly not a lie, then be adult enough to admit you made a false claim and apologize.
One chance.
If I had to guess, I would guess that you would say that Trump's false claim that the media is the enemy of the people is not a false claim. But for you to do that, you would have to make sense of the claim. In what sense are they an enemy of the people? Are they seeking to do or overthrow the United States? No they're not. So, don't even go down that road. You'll just be making another false claim in defense of false claims. So don't even go down that road.
Since I agree with Stan’s clear, simple stance which Marshal cannot stand, then Marshal, reason understands, must see Stan as a diaper stain as well. But if Stan and I agree then Marshal must be staring at the clean light of the sun through the colostomy bag that is his brain.
Stan: “If it was actually possible for the President of the Senate (the VP's job in this instance) to overturn an election for "illegal voting" in this case, he would have had to do it in direct opposition to all the findings of all the courts that had examined the question to date. That is, he would have had to do it on a bald-faced "because I said so" position. No good lawyer can do that. Besides, Pence had already said he saw nothing in the Constitution that allowed it and, therefore, he wouldn't do it....
I guess I don't get your last paragraph. I don't know who you're referring to with "those who turned on Trump." My comment was about Trump turning on Pence for standing by the Constitution.”
This is what evil does. It turns against itself.
"Over the last 72 hours, I have received multiple death threats and thousands upon thousands of emails from Christians saying the nastiest and most vulgar things I have ever heard toward my family and ministry. I have been labeled a coward, sellout, a traitor to the Holy Spirit, and cussed out at least 500 times.”
This is the beginning of a Facebook post from Sunday by the conservative preacher Jeremiah Johnson. On Jan. 7, the day after the storming of the Capitol, Johnson had issued a public apology, asserting that God removed Donald Trump from office because of his pride and arrogance, and to humble those, like Johnson, who had fervently supported him.
The response was swift and vicious. As he put it in that later Facebook post, “I have been flabbergasted at the barrage of continued conspiracy theories being sent every minute our way and the pure hatred being unleashed. To my great heartache, I’m convinced parts of the prophetic/charismatic movement are far SICKER than I could have ever dreamed of.”
This is what is happening inside evangelical Christianity and within conservatism right now. As a conservative Christian friend of mine put it, there is strife within every family, within every congregation, and it may take generations to recover."
Dan, what does Craig look like as he perpetually downplays white rioters who rage in self-destructive irrationality having in mind zero actual change in any law or policy but castigates black protestors who demand to be treated equally under the law?
And now he has this stunning, unprecedented in modern times, charge to dance away from and sidestep THE basic moral law:
"Federal prosecutors offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the U.S. Capitol by President Donald Trump’s supporters on Thursday, saying in a court filing that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”
"Just so we don't go on for a hundred comments with you saying nothing of consequence, I'm going to give you one chance and only one chance to point to any single false claim that I have made in this post."
Fair enough. Let me see if I can find one.
"But the man...
1. who has spent years ruthlessly attacking the press as an enemy of the people and with the false claims that they are fake news.."
That's a lie. I've provided for you numerous examples of media lies from numerous sources in numerous posts. The claims that the leftist media lies to the people they're tasked with informing is not only true, but ongoing, as their reporting on the rioting at the Capitol building on Jan 6 proves unequivocally. Purposely shading or omitting information that fully informs the people...which is what they claim they are doing nonetheless...is detrimental and thus, they've become the enemy of the people about whom they falsely claim they care about informing.
"2. who has spent years lying about everything, from mundane matters to serious matters..."
The lie here has been exposed many, many times in the last four years. It is the purposeful conflating of opinion, mistake and less than full possession of all the facts with the intent to deceive, which is what a lie is and what you perpetuate routinely as if it's a favored hobby. Throughout that time I've appealed to you...and many other lefties...to provide an example of some "lie" that is worth anyone's concern, such as lying about Trump saying there are good nazis, or about lying that Trump called all immigrants animals, or lying about Trump having profited from being president on a scale comparable to the profiting of Biden being a senator. To this day, you've not come across with any such example. That is, not without lying.
"4. then spent months repeating the dangerously false claim that the election was stolen and we have to "take back" our nation..."
You're still lying about this being a false claim. Despite all the evidence I've provided both here (which you delete as if you're freaking Twitter) and at my own blog, you've yet to produce one single piece of evidence that affirms the legitimacy of this election or that any of the evidence provided is without merit. The one attempt was weak in that it was no more than election officials using the patented Ducky Dan Trabue "Nyuh uh" response to the charge of shredding ballots.
"...THAT man in those circumstances is inciting violence when he gathers his followers in DC and tells them to be strong, to fight, to take back and to march down to the Capitol (where our free and fair presidential election was being certified) and stop them from "stealing" the election."
Another lie. You neither read nor listened to the speech, or you would have produced the exact words that honest people and actual Christians would call "inciteful". His speech was no more an incitement to violent behavior than a high school coach giving a half-time pep talk.
more coming...
Dan...
""But the man...
1. who has spent years ruthlessly attacking the press as an enemy of the people and with the false claims that they are fake news.."
Marshal...
"That's a lie. I've provided for you numerous examples of media lies from numerous sources in numerous posts. The claims that the leftist media lies to the people they're tasked with informing is not only true, but ongoing, as their reporting on the rioting at the Capitol building on Jan 6 proves unequivocally. Purposely shading or omitting information that fully informs the people...which is what they claim they are doing nonetheless...is detrimental and thus, they've become the enemy of the people about whom they falsely claim they care about informing."
1. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that CNN DID make a false claim. Let's say that they made 100 false claims in one year (in their thousands and thousands of stories).
Does that make them an "enemy of the people..."? Says who? Prove it or admit it's not factual.
And also, before you do anything else: DEFINE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. You use that term like a weapon. Take a stand and explain what in the world you mean by it.
2. EVEN IF it were true that CNN made 100 deliberately false claims in a year (almost certainly a false claim and one that you can't support), but EVEN IF YOU COULD, the claim that Trump routinely makes is "The MEDIA is an enemy of the people." ANYTIME you make a stupid as hell false sweeping claim like that, you can COUNT on it being false. Because of course it is.
Do you recognize that the claim that I cited, "the media is an enemy of the people" is false because it's sweeping and unproven?
Or are you landing on the notion that they (the "media") is "fake news" because of 100 false claims from CNN (EVEN IF that were true, which it almost certainly isn't and you certainly have not proven)? Because, again, that is false simply because of the sweeping nature of the stupidly false claim.
Here's the thing: EVEN IF CNN had ten (out of dozens and dozens) reporters who made a total of 100 false claims in a year (out of thousands of claims reported), WHO SAYS they are an Enemy of the people because of that? You're holding reporters to a higher standard of Truth than your idiot pervert corrupt president? Who says that's rational?
Or are you also holding that Trump is an enemy of the people?
More...
You've already failed to prove your stupidly and dangerously false claim but look, I'm being gracious. I'm giving you a chance to prove your stupidly false claim (and you can't, because it's stupidly false), by clarifying and I'm even helping you show you how you can make your case.
What you need to do (and failing to do these will just serve to demonstrate that you can't support your claim because, as noted, your claim is false and not only false, but stupidly, inanely and dangerously false):
A. DEFINE "enemy of the people"
B. Define "fake news"
C. Define who "the media is" (and here, I'd counsel you to be specific and limited. If you're going to claim that CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, BBC, WaPo, FoxNews and NY Times are ALL "the media" you're talking about, you're going to have to prove ALL of them with data and support.)
D. Provide some basis for why making a false report (IF it actually ever happened, and again, you almost certainly can't support it more than a handful of cases - fewer if you leave Fox News off your Enemy List) in a story makes that reporter an "enemy of the people" or makes the entire media operation "fake news"
E. Affirm that you are not ignorant of the history of media in the US (Hint: It began as propaganda for parties and was done by all parties - are you saying that all those early newspapers were "enemies of the people...") (Note: It could be said that some of those early newspapers DID report a good deal of fake news, rather like Alex Jones or OAN or NewsMaxx)
F. Affirm that you're counting OAN and NewsMax as "fake news" and an "enemy of the people," given their dismal record of making up stories and a lack of actual journalistic integrity/rules.
G. Provide the number and reasoning for the number of false claims made by a media outfit that makes it either fake news or EOTP. That is, are you FN and EOTP if you make 100 false claims in a year? 1000? 10,000? What makes that the number that makes them "bad..."?
H. IF 100 false claims in a year makes one an enemy of the people, then why isn't Trump a fiend of the people, given his thousands of false claims each year? Why isn't Trump "fake news..."?
I. If you're going to say that it's okay for the president to make false claims, but if the media does it, they're FN and EOTP... says who? Prove it. Support it.
...for starters.
You want to support your claim, support it. Actually support it. And define your terms.
Failure to do so will result in deletion. Take it slowly, I'd counsel.
Again, Marshal, you need to begin with some definitions to even attempt to have a hope of finding a single false claim I have made.
Define "enemy of the people."
Define "fake news."
Then explain why Trump's thousands of false and stupidly false claims are NOT making him an enemy of the people, but an alleged "false claim" by some reporters makes "the media" an enemy of the people.
Begin with those answers.
Failure to do so will expose the reality that your claim that I've "lied" is, itself, a false claim.
"You've already failed to prove your stupidly and dangerously false claim but look, I'm being gracious."
I've presented no "stupidly and dangerously false claims", you pervert liar, and you're being a dickhead.
"A. DEFINE "enemy of the people""
I don't have to. You simply wish to hide behind definitions because you're too false and cowardly to deal with the real questions, which are:
1. Why does Trump (and millions of Americans) refer to the leftist media as "enemies of the people"?
2. Is the reason for doing so justified?
Note my wording in question #1, because it reveals another lie you and lefties tell. Honest people know Trump doesn't attack the entire press or freedom of the press. He's attacking the lefty liars that are prominent and constantly lying about him to the American people. Conservatives have been concerned with this for decades and it is why people like Rush Limbaugh became such a huge draw, followed by so many other conservative pundits who expose the lefty lies. They were followed by FoxNews and more recently by a host of other outlets that you like to demean because of some amateur ranking system.
"B. Define "fake news""
The type of news presented by those like CNN, MSNBC, The NYT and WaPo. This type is short on facts and truth and intended to attack the president and deny people more impactful news about those these outlets support. Examples abound. They're like grains of sand on the beach. (Don't get your diapers in a twist. That last sentence was hyperbole.)
"C. Define who "the media is" (and here, I'd counsel you to be specific and limited. If you're going to claim that CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, BBC, WaPo, FoxNews and NY Times are ALL "the media" you're talking about, you're going to have to prove ALL of them with data and support.)"
Now you're lying again, you deviant liar. You know damned well who is meant by the term, as it hasn't been a freakin' secret. Trump's not spoken in code. It's common knowledge. So stuff your counsel. Liar.
"D. Provide some basis for why making a false report (IF it actually ever happened, and again, you almost certainly can't support it more than a handful of cases - fewer if you leave Fox News off your Enemy List) in a story makes that reporter an "enemy of the people" or makes the entire media operation "fake news""
This is also you lying again. You think "how many times" is the question? Bullshit and a bullshit standard. Yet, those enemies are routinely lying about Trump and attacking him. Any opportunity to disparage Trump, conservatives and the GOP (or those who support them) is what they will do. So while it's far more that "a" false report...since it's so routine...it's more about what they report falsely and why. Again, examples abound.
"E. Affirm that you are not ignorant of the history of media in the US..."
Affirm you aren't a liar by recognizing the reality of media malfeasance just over the last four years. OR, find a false report by NewsMaxx or OAN. I don't care about Alex Jones. I've never listened to his stuff anymore than you have...which is never.
"F. Affirm that you're counting OAN and NewsMax as "fake news" and an "enemy of the people," given their dismal record of making up stories and a lack of actual journalistic integrity/rules."
You're a liar. You've never watched/read either of those fine sources and you couldn't provide a false report from them if your sorry life depended upon it.
"G. Provide the number and reasoning for the number of false claims made by a media outfit that makes it either fake news or EOTP."
I've provided plenty of examples of lies, distortions, half-truths and purposeful omissions by the usual suspects, you lying sack of shit, that justify the terms applied to those suspects. YOU, being a lying sack of shit, write it all off as honest mistakes, as if you know what it means to be honest.
"H. IF 100 false claims in a year makes one an enemy of the people, then why isn't Trump a fiend of the people, given his thousands of false claims each year?"
Your source for this lie about Trump is WaPo. I've gone over their laughable compilation of lies and...well...they're lying. It includes mostly opinions, and no example of a willful intent to deceive, as is common with WaPo and the rest of the usual suspects...OR, very much like you, too stupid to know something is false and too lazy to actually find out. Nothing Trump's ever said is anywhere near as egregious a lie as what you and those in the media you laughingly defend as "heroic".
"I. If you're going to say that it's okay for the president to make false claims, but if the media does it, they're FN and EOTP... says who?"
But I'm NOT going to say "it's okay" for the president to make false claims if by that you mean he's intentionally lying. I certainly don't say it's okay every time YOU lie and I don't say it's OK for ANYONE to lie. So stop being such an unholy, ungracious and unChristian liar. Even though you're no Christian, you shouldn't lie.
But it's especially egregious for the lefty media to lie because they're purpose for existing is to inform the people with accurate, objective information upon which they people can base their opinions, positions and understandings of events that impact their lives. That's the alpha and omega of their purpose. The lefty media does it especially poorly when they do it at all. They're too busy taking sides, which is decidedly NOT acceptable for any journalist.
"You want to support your claim, support it."
I have. Comprehensively in at least two posts at my blog (because you deleted my providing that proof at yours. And I mean "proof" of their lies, not just evidence that suggests it.) So stop your lying and grow the hell up and be a man. Delete my if you want. I don't care, you spineless, nutless liar.
For days now, as Marshal’s frustration explodes about Trump, he increasingly soothes himself with obsessive mentions of male genitalia. 🤔
ONE simple question. The thing I asked you to do first and it's such a simple thing.
YOU and deviants like Trump like to make this stupidly, ignorantly, foolishly, dangerously and diabolical false claim and it is a serious claim. "THEY are an enemy of the people!" Over and over. As if it were actually true (and clearly, it's not), not an opinion like, "VANILLA is the best ice cream flavor!"
When the term "Enemy of the people" is typically/historically used, it's been used to suggest traitorous actions deliberately taken to undermine and harm a nation. That is a serious charge. IF there were a single bit of reality to it, you'd have us all on your charge.
But because it's a stupidly false claim designed to undermine trust in journalism (and by now, being pretty effective at it - to the point where people are trusting actual fake news like OAN and NM), because it is an empty-headed pathetic partisan appeal to engage your colleagues in fear and self-defense, the charge itself NEEDS to be supported or dismissed as the dangerous threat it actually poses. And that BEGINS with defining WHAT THE HELL you mean by Enemy of the People.
I've decided to leave your comments here in spite of your deliberate choice to do this one simple task because I want to address your other comments.
But know this, Marshal: You will NEVER comment on any post of mine again UNTIL you define what you mean by Enemy OR apologize for being an ass on this point.
Never again.
You're not wrong, Feodor.
I think Marshal’s unconscious cannot face Trump’s gutless character. The man will slink off Wednesday morning before the Inauguration because he cannot put country before his ego and stand in front of us as the loser. He’s so petty he cannot leave in a plane other than Air Force One.
Marshal...
I don't have to.
Yes. Yes, you do. THE VERY NEXT THING you ever try to say here again MUST be a definition of Enemy of the people. First of all, my blog, my rules. Secondly, that is a serious charge, a rational adult would recognize that they need to offer their definition.
As to your questions...
1. Why does Trump (and millions of Americans) refer to the leftist media as "enemies of the people"?
A. First of all, because they are whiny, irrational little children who think such attacks are reasonable, and because 1. Either they don't realize how dangerously false such claims are or 2. They realize how dangerous it is and don't care. None of which speaks well of them.
B. Secondly, and trying to get to the concern that people have about journalists, my guess would be that people on the conservative side of things who'd make such empty claims, they do so because they are used to getting their way and being the white conservatives who've always been in charge and now they're no longer they're in charge/no longer the majority and they feel their power slipping from them and it scares them. Thus, they strike back in fear and irrationality.
C. Because much of the mainstream media is too liberal FOR THEIR TASTES. Noting that there's nothing wrong with being more liberal or more conservative, and noting the reality that the media has always had biases of various sorts because the media is made up of humans who have biases.
D. Nonetheless, the reality is that much of "the media" is, to varying degrees, more liberal than conservatives and they see that as an attack upon them, as opposed to just a different slant to the news than they'd like to see.
It's like this ridiculous "war on Christmas" that conservative Christians have been cowering and whining about for years. The reality is that we're a diverse society (much to our own good) and when people are not sufficiently effusive or are too inclusive, some conservative Christians view that as "an attack" or "war" instead of just the reality that we're not all conservative Christians. In other words, more liberal people do exist with our different views, and we exist in the media and on school boards and everywhere and our existence is not an attack on conservatives, nor does it make us an "enemy," just fellow citizens with a different view. But some conservatives feel threatened by it and lash out.
2. Is the reason for doing so justified?
No. It's just not. It's not rational, nor is it factually correct. It's understandable that a group who formerly controlled the mainstream who no longer control it... it's understandable that they might feel threatened, but there's no reason to. At least not so long as they're not thinking (as white South Africans did for years) that THEIR minority ought to get to do as they wish and control the culture, but that's not rational, nor in fitting with a free republic.
Marshal makes false claims while saying I'm lying (and failing to support THAT claim). He's building lies upon lies to defend lies while attacking me with lies. Marshal...
The type of news presented by those like CNN, MSNBC, The NYT and WaPo. This type is short on facts and truth and intended to attack the president and deny people more impactful news about those these outlets support.
I asked "Define fake news" and you respond with this, which isn't a definition. It's a childish pet peeve. But you make this claim in that comment...
"This type is short on facts and truth..."
In reality, all of those journalistic organizations report tens of thousands if not millions of facts each year. You've never come up with anything to suggest that even .01% of those facts, which they DO report, are mistaken and even less to suggest that any of those facts were deliberately misreported.
In short, your claim is a false one that you don't even try to support because you can't support it because it is false and stupidly observably false.
Reality: They report tens of thousands of facts. That is NOT short on facts.
Reality: They will present those facts with a bias, because journalists are humans and humans are biased. Some are more conservative and some more liberal. But a bias is not necessarily non-factual. That is, choosing to report about the thousands of false claims Trump made COULD be suggested to be biased, by choosing to focus on those false claims. But it's not non-factual.
Reality: There will be SOME reporters who deliberately misrepresent the facts of a story. We know this happens because we've caught them.
We also know that this rarely happens and we can know this because it's so extremely rare to actually catch someone doing this.
Reality: Fox News (an actual journalistic group, if very flawed and biased by their conservative beliefs), OAN and NewsMax (not actual journalistic groups, just propaganda outfits) all have made mistakes in their reporting. Factual mistakes. Especially in the case of OAN and NewsMax. Now, IF you were trying to say that being biased or making false claims in news stories was how you measured an "enemy of the state," then you would include them, as they have worse records than the more mainstream/liberal news groups. That you don't measure them by the same non-standard that you try to measure more mainstream/liberal news groups shows YOUR misreporting and bias.
But that you don't consider them an enemy of the people or fake news.
I didn't finish that last comment...
But that you don't consider them an enemy of people or fake news, this shows your own biases and inconsistency and the false nature of your claim. It's not a claim based upon facts or reality. It's a claim you're making to serve a partisan end and you don't use the same measure to criticize those media with a conservative bias.
Perhaps you missed this Marshal.
STOP.
READ THIS:
But know this, Marshal: You will NEVER comment on any post of mine again UNTIL you define what you mean by Enemy OR apologize for being an ass on this point.
Never again.
It's a simple and reasonable request. Do what I say or you will never comment here again. You're making a claim about enemies of the state. You MUST define what you mean.
And to reiterate...
Marshal (rather like a spoiled child)...
I don't have to.
Yes. Yes, you do.
THE VERY NEXT THING you ever try to say here again MUST be a definition of Enemy of the people.
First of all, my blog, my rules.
Secondly, that is a serious charge, a rational adult would recognize that they need to offer their definition.
The party that says it respects life cannot respect the basic principles of Democracy. The majority of them, like Marshal, have dived under deep irrationality to avoid recognizing the lies they perpetuate. They rage at democracy and science and kill people.
“Republicans in the Minnesota State Senate were feeling jubilant after the November election. They had held onto a slim majority following an onslaught by Democrats trying to win control. Now, it was time to party. More than 100 senators, their spouses and their staff members gathered for a celebratory dinner at a catering hall outside the Twin Cities on Nov. 5, two days after Election Day. Masks were offered to guests on arrival, but there was little mask wearing over hours of dining and drinking, at a moment when a long-predicted surge in coronavirus infections was gripping the state.
At least four senators in attendance tested positive for Covid-19 in the days that followed. One was the Republican majority leader, Paul Gazelka, the state’s most outspoken opponent of mask mandates and shutdown orders during the pandemic. He compared his symptoms to a “moderate flu” and recovered. So did two other senators who had tested positive after the dinner. “Our future cannot be prolonged isolation, face coverings and limited activities,” Mr. Gazelka said defiantly in announcing his positive test.
The fourth was Senator Jerry Relph, a Vietnam veteran and grandfather from St. Cloud, Minn. Struggling to breathe after testing positive for the coronavirus, he was admitted to a hospital in mid-November. He died on Dec. 18, at age 76. His daughter Dana Relph, who watched her father fight the disease as well as the cruel isolation it forces on patients and families, is still furious at Republican leaders for holding the dinner and the refusal of Mr. Gazelka to take responsibility.
“Why are you throwing a party with 100-plus people in the middle of a pandemic?” said Ms. Relph, 44, who was not allowed to visit her father until the day he died. “Why would you choose to do that when we know people are going to be eating and drinking and taking their masks off, where their inhibitions will be lowered? Why would you even consider that responsible behavior?”
Mr. Gazelka declined an interview request, and a spokeswoman said he would not respond to Ms. Relph “out of respect for privacy requested from the family.”
Enemy of the People: In the context of this discussion, the term refers to the press, specifically the leftist media outlets, because of their lying, distortions and the effort they expend to disparage, demean and demonize conservatives, the GOP and President Donald Trump. They are the enemy because they abuse their position as a protected industry to engage in the aforementioned behaviors which result in a poorly or misinformed public...a consequence that is in distinct contradiction of the purpose of the press, which is to objectively inform the public of the facts surrounding any given story they report.
The above is common knowledge. The term, while promoted mostly by President Trump, is not an opinion unique to him, as at least half the nation has had a low opinion of the leftist mainstream media for decades. The term accurately reflects very common sentiment among at least half the nation.
So now you have your definition. Pound it violently up your ass. And speaking of ass, it is you who constantly engages in asshole behavior, by making demands of a type you never follow, here or anywhere else. You lie, you don't support your counter position or your charges against mine. I provide evidence and you delete it because it delivers what you demand, not for any shortcoming or lack of merit of that evidence.
As to the term applied to the leftist media liars being a serious charge...bullshit. It is an accurate charge given how many people depend on honest, objective reporting and fail to get it, yet live their lives as if they did (mostly leftist morons like yourself---conservatives are more discerning).
Rational people, therefore, do not need a definition because it's meaning is self-evident when used as it has been regarding the leftist press. You're just looking to hide behind a strict definition that you've culled from Wikipedia or some such. It is irrational, in fact, to pretend that actual rational people (you are in now way among them) would have any difficulty in understanding why it is used here. Yet even that definition still makes the use of the term valid for use against the press.
As I continue to remind, the leftist media has been poorly regarded for decades. It's why conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh became so popular, and the general disdain of the press is what led to the creation of FoxNews. One could argue it goes back to William F. Buckley's Firing Line and National Review and then those conservative periodicals that followed.
But now, as if their antics weren't bad enough during Trump's presidency (there can't be 90% of reports being negative and without a concerted effort to influence public opinion, which isn't their job), they've become even more emboldened by the stolen election. None of them have provided any actual "debunking" of any piece of evidence for the widespread voter/election fraud that took place this past election.
So again, you know all this. You simply can't deal with it so you play your semantic games and delete what you can't honestly refute. You're a joke.
Marshal, I've supported EVERYTHING I've said, and if that wasn't the truth, you wouldn't be deleting me. Liar.
Marshal... Enemy of the People: In the context of this discussion, the term refers to the press, specifically the leftist media outlets, because of their lying, distortions and the effort they expend to disparage, demean and demonize conservatives, the GOP and President Donald Trump. They are the enemy because they abuse their position as a protected industry to engage in the aforementioned behaviors which result in a poorly or misinformed public...
Or, trying to clean it up and remove some of the garbage from this awkward "definition..."
Enemy of the People:
the term refers to the press,
specifically the leftist media outlets,
because of their lying, distortions and
the effort they expend to disparage, demean and demonize conservatives,
the GOP and President Donald Trump.
They are the enemy because they abuse their position
as a protected industry to engage in the aforementioned behaviors
which result in a poorly or misinformed public..."
First of all, a definition that specifically excludes conservatives is not a valid definition, it's a partisan attack.
Secondly, it SEEMS you're saying
"EOTS: Those who are responsible for passing on truthful, factual information
who make false claims and attack 'the other side.'
(Other than your partisan desire to attack) Why is it limited to news media?
Are not politicians in a place of responsibility even MORE responsible for passing on accurate factual news and not attack the other political side?
You'd give a pass to Trump for his ENDLESS DAILY attacks on everyone perceived to disagree with him but wouldn't give a pass to the liberal media?
That's bullshit and nonsense.
The thing is, Marshal: THIS "definition" is not a common definition of "enemy of the state." It is partisan and it is nonsense. It deliberately gives a pass to Trump and anyone like him for MUCH worse attacks and false information.
It's YOUR definition, not a common English definition. Not a rational definition.
Finally, "people who pass on false information to attack those on the other side" would include you, but I don't say you're an enemy of the state because you are blindly, hatefully, dishonestly partisan in your attacks. Why wouldn't I? Because that's not a common, rational definition of EOTS.
This "reasoning" and defense of your false claims is just irrational and whimsically personal to you, thus, it's bullshit, thus, your claim that I've lied is exposed as a lie.
Also finally, you've given NO support for your implication/suggestion/claim that normal media outlets (CBS, NPR, BBC, CNN, etc) are more likely to pass on false information than more conservative ones (Fox News) or propaganda rags (OAN, NewsMax).
It's just a series of nonsensical, irrational, emotionally fragile false claims which you can not and have not supported.
You're done. I gave you a chance to prove that I lied and you failed miserably.
Marshal said, in a now deleted comment... ""It's YOUR definition, not a common English definition."
That's not what you requested."
THAT much is true. BUT, if you are making up a definition unique to you, it's meaningless.
Do you remember, Dan, how we laughed at Marshal and Craig’s love for Trump’s Wall?
They’re really gonna need to squeeze a lot of pride out of 80 miles of new barrier.
“Donald Trump on Tuesday began closing out his presidency the same way he began his campaign for it five and a half years ago: with lies about the nation’s southern border with Mexico.
“We’re joined together to celebrate a great achievement: the extraordinarily successful building of the wall,” Trump bragged in a 22-minute speech in Alamo, Texas, that cost taxpayers at least $2 million in travel and security costs to stage. “They said it couldn’t be done, but we got it done.”
In reality, only about 80 miles of the 453 he takes credit for has been built in areas where there was previously no barrier, according to Customs and Border Protection figures updated on Jan. 4. The rest of the miles have replaced existing fencing of some kind.”
The gutless wonder is flying off - unable to stay and face democracy as every modern President has - just as President Biden kneels before God in a Christian church.
Marshal commented complaining that the media covered up the Hunter Biden story, as "evidence" of a "corrupt" media. But I knew about the Biden story. You know how? I read it in the news. Because it was there.
That the media did not cover that story sufficiently or with a slant the way you prefer is not evidence that they haven't covered it.
That you would make such a claim is evidence that you are a hostile and irrational and emotionally fragile witness.
From the - CONSERVATIVE BIRTHPLACE - National Review:
“Donald Trump is, in fact, the first president since Herbert Hoover to lead his party to losing the presidency, the House, and the Senate all in a single term. Along with being the first president to be impeached twice and the first game-show host elected to the office, that’s Trump’s claim to the history books. Well, that and 400,000 dead Americans and the failed coup d’état business.
As for the ratings Trump fears and worships, ask the Third Lady: Melania Trump departs the scene the most unpopular presidential wife in recorded statistical history.
You Trumpish Republicans sneered that Joe Biden was too corrupt and too senescent to win a presidential campaign, that he was one part mafioso and one part turnip.
That turnip kicked your dumb asses from Delaware to D.C.
So you rioted. Real smart move, Cletus.
Five Americans are dead. Barricades have been erected around the Capitol. Thousands of federal troops have been deployed to the streets of Washington. State capitols have been obliged to prepare for siege. Americans blame you for this — and they are not wrong.
“Trust the plan,” the QAnon cultists say. Is this what you were planning? I know you are stupid, but you are not that stupid.
“Oh, but he fights!” you’ll say — over and over and over. He didn’t fight — he tweeted. He’s ten feet tall on social media and a pushover in real life. Trade deficit: up. Unemployment rate: rising. Abortion rate: rising. Beijing: rising. The coronavirus body-count: rising.
But he sure did tweet a lot!“
"But I knew about the Biden story. You know how? I read it in the news. Because it was there."
What "news"? Put up or shut up. If you read in the NY Post, then you're only validating my point. It wasn't covered in the leftist media that you read until after the election...unless it was to disparage those like the NY Post as many did...calling it "Russian disinformation" and such.
So what have you got other than your lying insistence that you "read it in the news"?
Marshal is a lie whore.
"One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.
The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.
The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.
One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.
Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government.
An unverified leak of documents — including salacious pictures from what President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and a Delaware Apple repair store owner claimed to be Hunter Biden's hard drive — were published in the New York Post on Oct. 14. Associates close to Trump, including Giuliani and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, have promised more blockbuster leaks and secrets, which have yet to materialize."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387
Hey, remember when I peeked in here and saw Art posting about the Data Integrity Group and I asked if anyone had looked into their claims yet? I don't know if this is legit or not, but this guy apparently did:
https://nickdepsky.medium.com/the-data-integrity-group-and-its-claims-of-election-fraud-debunked-c8307867667c
Nice find, Les. But I saw nothing in it that suggests Depsky contacted the Data Integrity Group with his findings for a response from them. I'm no IT guy, so it would be good to see them hash it out. At least before a claim of having "debunked" the DIG claim is put forth.
He posted to their Twitter accounts days ago. No replies.
Les,
I posted a comment at the link you provided from Nick Depsky, wherein I encouraged his contacting DIG to get their response. I don't know where you found he posted to their Twitter account, but this is the response to me from him suggested he made no attempt at all to get a response from DIG:
"Hey Art, I appreciate your reply and agree that generally best practice of debate and iterative data analysis should involve collaboration between all parties. I was originally planning on reaching out, but the more I dug into the data and found the glaring omissions and misrepresentation of values, as well as additional interviews with this team claiming that fraud was "undeniable", I lost any confidence that there would be any good faith debate. The recklessness with which they posted videos with such dramatic and dangerous claims suggests that their motives are not for informed debate, but rather to sow doubt and misconstrue the truth."
Doesn't sound much like he's interested in truly getting facts and clarifications. Sounds to me more like a rather arrogant confidence in his own work at the cost of truth. How does he dare suggest a lack of good faith on the part of DIG, when any suspicion would seem to require exactly the back-and-forth he now rejects? Where's the "good faith" interest in facts there?
So now, the lot of us with far less technical understanding of the subject matter are left to choose on the basis of their word alone, be it Depsky or DIG.
Go to his Twitter feed. He posted his findings on the 19th and tagged Mealey, McLaughlin, etc. in the tweet. There's no actual Data Integrity Group Twitter account, from what I can tell. Or any formal entity called the Data Integrity Group, for that matter. I could be wrong.
Yeah, it's pretty arrogant to make bold claims about one's own beliefs at the cost of truth. Kinda like arguing an election was stolen without presenting data analysis like Depsky's that might support the opposing position.
I presented his direct response to me. You present what you're saying is his attempts on Twitter. So now we have the same guy saying two conflicting things and I'm supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt? In which direction? The reaching out or the not reaching out?
I'd say the issue is in doubt at the worst, without a response to his alleged "debunkery".
As to the many other forms of evidence at hand in support of a stolen election, there's been NO attempts to debunk any of it. That speaks volumes.
He's not saying two conflicting things. He's saying he originally considered going over the data with them while he put together his presentation, and then reconsidered due to what the data was telling him about their intentions. Instead, he presented his finished product to the DIG members via Twitter and awaited their response. Which never came, of course.
Let's not forget - one of the most visible faces of the Data Integrity Group is Lynda Laughlin. That's a Sean Hannity producer. I find it highly unlikely that that crew has any interest whatsoever in working together with someone who might counter their case.
*McLaughlin
Dude...He said he considered reaching out but changed his mind. You're saying he tweeted those of the group. How is this not contradictory? Because tweeting individual members isn't the same as reaching out to the group composed of those individuals? Are you running for office?
Your more recent comment doesn't make sense. What point are you trying to make? What does it matter what McLaughlin's other work is? Please elaborate.
Marshal, the whore of lies, does what lovers of lies do: he's moved away from his problem of facts to attack process, which he can only do by presuming things he doesn't know about what is in the mind of people he doesn't know. And he wants to stay there: a blank hill of unknowing devoid of reality.
Timing. You originally said you think he should've reached out to them BEFORE he said he had debunked their work, implying they'd dig into the data together as he did his own analysis or some nonsense. In his reply to you, he said he'd considered doing so, but decided they wouldn't be the most receptive group given who they are and the manner in which they selectively presented the data in question (hence my later comment). As with everyone these days, they have their own agenda, and he sniffed it out, deciding instead to post his own analysis, thus giving them an opportunity to respond by tagging them on Twitter. Can't say I blame him. The fact that none of them have responded or even pursued this narrative any further, from what I've seen, is curious. At least the guy has given them an opportunity to respond to HIS response by tagging them. He was under no obligation to do so.
How does he know he "sniffed out" anything, Les, unless he first contacts them for their response to his findings? He may believe he's on to something, but there's no way to confirm without first contacting DIG, presenting what he thinks he found and getting DIG's response. Who knows? Perhaps DIG would see their error. This arrogant cuss merely assumes DIG won't be receptive, which is another way of saying, "I'm a wuss who isn't all that convicted in my own crap." If he was certain, why would he not make every effort. He could have pretended he tried and pretended he got no response. That wouldn't have sounded as much a bullshit angle as what he actually said.
So, until he checks with them, he can't rightly say he debunked anything, because what he thinks might be way off base compared to what DIG did with their work. It would have been more honest to have said, "I think I found a problem that would debunk what DIG has claimed, but as yet I haven't been able to make contact to confirm it." But no...lefties don't operate that way.
And yes, Depsky is absolutely obligated to seek a response. How would you feel if someone said your discovery is crap and made no attempt to bring his charge directly to you in order that you can defend yourself? Don't you believe you have a right to face your accusers? I truly hope DIG is made aware of this guy in order to resolve what he thinks is a problem with their work. We'll all be better off for it. But you seem willing and eager to regard Depsky as knowing his ass from a hole in the ground. On what basis?
I, on the other hand, am more than happy that he appears to have made some kind of effort to analyze DIG's work and come to a conclusion. But that only goes so far. Now it's a he said/she said and nothing more. To me that puts both sides in limbo, with neither side's work being of any value as things now stand.
The whole idea of responding to evidence for fraud is to provide a reason for Trump supporters...and the nation in general...to have confidence that Trump lost fairly. This stands as one possible "proof" that at least one piece of evidence has no merit. It seems you're more than willing to buy into this guy's angle while perhaps denigrating any who have legitimate concerns for all the evidence of fraud. I believe the entire collection of evidence for fraud is compelling. I don't believe truly debunking one piece has any bearing on the rest in any way and am not willing to reject it all on the basis of one piece being truly debunked, if indeed it has been, which is not as yet established in any way.
You're mischaracterizing who the actual accusers are in this situation, Art. The accusers are the Data Integrity Group. They're the ones using election data to make bold claims about fraud. Did they consult someone like Depsky before slapping that video together and telling anyone who would listen that the data supports their accusations? I don't hear you calling for that same kind of accountability or transparency from them. Depsky is the responder here, not the accuser. And not the only one, I might add. People have had some time now to look into DIG's case, and Depsky's not the only one picking it apart out there on the interwebs.
Also, the idea itself that someone has to contact the very people they're debunking in order to somehow confirm the accuracy of their own work is downright absurd. Depsky was looking at the same data that DIG was looking at. He didn't need to discuss their take on it with them, because they'd already revealed theirs to the Georgia Subcommittee and the entire world in late December. As he - and now others - stated, the blatant omissions and misrepresentations of the data he listed in his review of the DIG presentation made it clear to him that these people aren't really motivated by the truth. It was an act of courtesy that he even tagged these people at all. It's not a he said/she said thing, because as DIG themselves said, the data is publicly accessible.
"You're mischaracterizing who the actual accusers are in this situation, Art."
Not at all, because in reality there are two. DIG by their allegations of fraud, and Depsky in his allegations of shoddy work by DIG. Depsky may be correct, but until DIG responds, we can't know. I'm not willing to assume Depsky is looking at the same data the same way, and therein is the question on the table. Until the two can connect and explain, both cases will remain on the table and as I said, remain unresolved.
"Did they consult someone like Depsky before slapping that video together and telling anyone who would listen that the data supports their accusations?"
A silly question. Do prosecutors consult with defense attorneys prior to making their accusations? DIG suspects foul play and believe the data supports their suspicion. That's all they need to present to the public and from that point, either election officials or other interested parties...in this case Depsky...can present their counter arguments. Now, it's up to DIG to respond to counter arguments. Until they do, one can't insist one side is more accurate in their analysis than the other without being as knowledgeable in analyzing the data their own selves. Do you have that knowledge? I don't. But even if either of us do, does that guarantee we would both see the data the same way? You seem willing and eager to accept DIG is lacking and I suspect simply because you don't like the idea that perhaps Trump did win, or at least could have lost due to foul play. I, on the other hand, simply want to feel confident that against a party that has proven itself willing to cheat to win, cheating wasn't why they won this time.
Of course prosecutors don't consult defense attorneys first. Do you see the double standard in your logic there? You're making my point for me. You're arguing Depsky should have to contact DIG before making a debunkment claim, yet DIG gets to make dangerous election fraud claims a week before the electors cast their votes without seeking an opposing viewpoint first? You're absolutely right - that IS silly.
And why do you need to wait for DIG's response before you're able to decide if their presentation is bogus? Have you actually read through the counter arguments that are out there? I have, and I've made my decision. Why? Because I'm capable of making a judgment based on what I see and read with my own eyes. I wouldn't hold my breath for that DIG response, Art. Depsky posted his work and tagged them all over a week ago. Their lack of response is on them, not Depsky. Their 11th hour Hail Mary failed, so I'm guessing they're done with this.
Truth is, I don't know what's in Nick Depsky's head because I'm not Nick Depsky. The only reason I commented here earlier this month is because you'd posted a link that others here seemed unwilling to check out. I did, and it looked to me like it could be something worth considering if the information was, in fact, accurate, and I said so at the time. Turns out, it's falling apart under scrutiny. So you're welcome, I guess?
Also, is "debunkment" a word? Because it should be.
Les: "The only reason I commented here earlier this month is because you'd posted a link that others here seemed unwilling to check out. I did, and it looked to me like it could be something worth considering if the information was, in fact, accurate, and I said so at the time. Turns out, it's falling apart under scrutiny."
I'm shocked! that you went down a rabbit hole and found twisted lies! However could that have been discerned beforehand?
Oh, Dan and I did. But that fact doesn't hold you back from shining a self-given medal. Good for you, son.
I'm the type of guy that likes to know as many details as possible about an argument I disagree with, as opposed to automatically rejecting said argument based simply on its origin. If you think that approach deserves scorn, then we really have nothing to discuss. You're an odd duck, Feo.
An argument is a claim based on Enlightenment traditions of reason. That's not what you have been paying attention to. You are colluding by engaging with irreason as if its reason: because you identify with whiteness: you give white people auto-credence. Neither the defense of Democracy nor moral society is served that way.
But knock yourself out feeling good about chasing down the elaborated conspiracies thrown up by a corrupt 70+ million white people. There are lies coordinated only by a strategy to mislead enraged people chewed up white supremacy but unable to detach from it's increasingly impotent poisons.
Thank you for Feosplaining myself to me. I need a shower.
Well... now we are clear on your credibility and the veracity of:
"I'm the type of guy that likes to know as many details as possible about an argument I disagree with, as opposed to automatically rejecting said argument based simply on its origin."
And why you seem to want to believe your lying cousins if at all possible.
I know the details of me. You don't know the details of me. Hence I agree with my assessment of me.
We know what you write... and how, in the space of minutes, you contradicted your claim to honorable engaged receptivity.
Les, that's one of the first defenses of the ego-wounded: you don't know me! While your words are representing you all along: and you can't take them back.
And if you get ego-wounded when you get confronted, then it cannot be true that you are "the type of guy that likes to know as many details as possible about an argument I disagree with..." You're just a guy who wants to feel you're right: not a guy who seeks truth.
Contradicted how? Yes, Feo - I'm pretty sure I know myself better than some sanctimonious internet poster does. You're making sweeping claims about the psychology of someone you've never met based on a comment thread discussing election results?! You're not presenting an issue to debate here - you're sitting on your imagined high horse and dishing out condescension and white supremacy membership cards. Sorry, but that behavior doesn't warrant "honorable engaged receptivity" in my book.
Fellas, let the personal stuff go.
The point is, there is no data suggesting widespread voter fraud, and there was never any data suggesting widespread voter fraud. There are always some voter irregularities but ALL the experts says that we don't have a problem with voter fraud affecting elections and that was just as true, if not more true, this year.
The claim that the election was stolen was a lie by a corrupt and perverted liar, a man who has established himself as utterly corrupt and dishonest and only interested in promoting himself. This stupidly and dangerously false claim about the election is just another of his endless attacks on reason and decency.
What words should I want to take back, Feo? What words, specifically, have I written in here that justify your repeated assaults on me? Are you simply looking for someone to fight? Seriously, I don't get you. This kind of left-on-left warfare is baffling to me.
Yes, Dan, that IS the point. While folks in Art's camp might disagree, the general consensus among election experts is that the data doesn't support fraud allegations, and I'm getting attacked for wanting to take a peek at that information myself. This is the kind of ridiculous online behavior that made me tire of the blogosphere years ago. I appreciate you taking the time to ultimately give Art's link a quick look despite your initial reservations. I can respect that. Feo? I don't know what his game is.
"Of course prosecutors don't consult defense attorneys first. Do you see the double standard in your logic there?"
No.
DIG analyzed election results and finds reason to suspect the results of that election. They're bringing their suspicions to the states (or anyone else given their challenge to find fault in their work) and seeking an explanation. That's how I'm understanding their argument as I continue to work through it. That is, this is what we see and this is what is suggested by what we see.
Depsky, on the other hand, takes up the challenge and...based on the title of his piece...asserts "debunkment" has taken place. The difference, then, is in the suggestion by DIG, versus the assertion by Depsky. From what I've read and watched thus far, DIG has not unequivocally asserted fraud took place. I gather this from the two main dudes asking how the states might account for the irregularities they've discovered in the data sets. Yet, Depsky seems to have proudly made a truth claim that their work has been debunked. Whatever attempt he's made to contact DIG notwithstanding, such a claim is premature without comparing notes, as it were, with DIG to determine why disparities exist between them. Thus, there's no double-standard at all.
Worse is that Depsky is accusing DIG of cherry-picking in order to make it appear fraud took place. That's some serious stuff that DEMANDS he make contact with DIG before publicly making the claim. DIG's "accusation" is not an accusation at all, but a request for explanation for what seems to them to be curious problems in the data. They might be prepared to claim outright fraud, but I don't see that they've made that claim as of yet. Again, no double-standard on my part.
"And why do you need to wait for DIG's response before you're able to decide if their presentation is bogus?"
Uh...because there might be a reasonable and logical explanation that affirms it's not? That would be my first answer and frankly all the answer I need. I hadn't even taken a firm position on their presentation in the first place, but only offered it as one more piece of evidence that the election outcome might indeed by false. It's just another response to the "there's no evidence" claim by the Trump-haters for which, until Depsky, there's been no support.
more coming...
"Have you actually read through the counter arguments that are out there?"
If you're referring to counter-arguments against DIG, all I've seen thus far refer to Depsky. I've not seen any other at this point. Do you have more? If so, I'm more than willing to look at it. As I said, I'd much prefer to know...or at least fill a significant degree of confidence...Trump lost fairly.
"Because I'm capable of making a judgment based on what I see and read with my own eyes."
Well, so am I. But what's been presented to date regarding DIG's report is as yet unresolved, so judgement would be premature. And I'd like to have whatever judgement I make be the result of the work of both parties only...not on the hints at partisan chicanery more than a bit implied by Depsky's references to right-wing extremism (which seems simply to be anything not mainstream) and attacks on Epoch's beginnings. What makes him pure as the driven snow besides his own word that he is? Indeed, what makes his work worth a damn in the first place? How do we know he doesn't suck at it? How do we know DIG doesn't? We would if they could hash it all out. As to that, perhaps he simply hasn't drawn the attention of the DIG dudes. Why should he stand out?
Finally, I want to say that really do appreciate you being willing to actually look at a fraud claim (despite my belief that Depsky doesn't do more than provoke more questions regarding one single claim. I would insist nothing's fallen apart quite yet.) It's a refreshing change over the standard "Nyuh uh" counter argument.
One more for Les:
"While folks in Art's camp might disagree, the general consensus among election experts is that the data doesn't support fraud allegations, and I'm getting attacked for wanting to take a peek at that information myself."
"Election experts" are those being accused of having some degree of connection to fraud, either directly or indirectly. For example, there's been no defense by these "experts" regarding the rejection of and/or altering of state election laws. All ballots accepted as a result of these illegitimate changes by those not of the state legislatures are thus invalid but were counted as if they were. I'm still waiting for someone to direct me to a single court case where the evidence was properly reviewed and argued over. I've been unable to find one and I would think such a damning event would be easy to trip over, much less search out on the internet. You've presented the first attempt I've been able to find that actually seeks to address a concern regarding election fraud/irregularities. I appreciate that regardless of the fact it doesn't quite get the job done just yet. It at least moves us closer to an ultimate resolution on this one single piece of evidence. Without it, we've got nothing more than the "Nyuh uh" defense that's been the main counter argument, particularly by Dan and his...uh...comrade.
I have NEVER seen the amount of evidence for fraud as has been presented for this election. After two or three years and millions of dollars failing to prove Trump stole the first election with Russian help, we're to ignore all the evidence amassed that suggests the same people (Democrats) didn't steal this one. Sorry. That's bullshit. Folks in "my" camp have been begging for proof our suspicions are unfounded and unrealistic. Folks in the other camp have done nothing to allay those suspicions and instead have cemented them by their tap-dancing.
To be clear, the "personal stuff" is reducible to Les being unable to acknowledge his own words, motivating him to sprint to a fake defense intended to divert attention to the fact that I am merely pointing out his words, not his interior thoughts. And then projecting his embarrassment back out by attacking with made up snark about sanctimony. These reactions are the formula defense that almost all white people go to when we need to defend ourselves after revealing our irrational beliefs. For the record, I recognize the white fragility of white identity when I see it not because I am sanctimonious, but because I am a white man.
And with his last comment, Les continues to aggrandize his project. These are not "folks in Art's camp" who disagree. They are people engaged in manufacturing lies. Again, for a remedial lesson: "disagreement" suggest that people are dealing in reasonable dialogue or debate. And we are not, though Les wants to think so. Further, there is no "general consensus among election experts is that the data doesn't support fraud allegations." There is unanimity - among those who are looking at facts. To downplay the significance of unanimity to "general consensus" is to bath in prevarication, diversion, and soft collusion with those who are myth-making.
Lastly, you haven't been "peeking at information", Les. You've been peeking into the abyss of reason spawned by the white hot rage of white people who cannot face reality. Thus Q-Anon, Proud Boys, and all the corrupted, brutalizing groups we are only beginning to learn. That you think you are "peeking into information" and fathoming the faulty construal of those facts by your investigative bravery... is silly, juvenile self praise.
And I raise all these points of reasoned criticism not because I think I am absolutely right. Not because I cannot leave Les to consider or not what I've written. Not because he cannot actually be a guy who, as he writes but hasn't demonstrated today, "I'm the type of guy that likes to know as many details as possible about an argument I disagree with, as opposed to automatically rejecting said argument based simply on its origin."
I raise these points for all us because what we know about our society is that 70+ million white people are wilding and most of the rest of us are unwilling to fully wake up the fact that desperate, violent measures are being used by our white neighbors, our brothers and sisters, to preserve white superiority by any means necessary.
And fake games of using rational critique to constructively engage with corrupt claims is cripplingly collusive. We white people need to name it with our lips and confront it in our lives. Only when we beat down white supremacy and dissolve fake white identity - solely built on a 400 year old interest in unnatural power ownership - only then while we become a nation, a nation established in freedom for all ready to progress toward quality of life that everyone deserves.
Welp, this has been super fun, guys. Really uplifting stuff. Cool party up in here, Dan.
Art, maybe we'll chat again in another ten years. I'm taking my ball and going home again.
“To be clear, the "personal stuff" is reducible to Les being unable to acknowledge his own words...”
Or, defend them.
Les,
Hope to see you sooner than that. We didn't even get a chance to rip on the Bucks!
“The Bulls lent their voices in support of Black Lives Matter — the movement and statement — with the debut of a new mural draped in front of the Advocate Center windows Friday morning.T
Created by muralist Langston Allston and curated by Bulls creative partner All Star Press Chicago, the 33-by-24-foot piece hangs alongside the team’s six championship banners on the north side of the facility, facing West Madison Street. The mural also features small homages to the Bulls’ history, including a 1996 championship shirt and 1997 championship ring.”
Post a Comment