| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
If it isn't convincing enough to convince some of the most gullible people on the planet (NYT reporters trying to "both sides are doing it" an issue) then it isn't convincing enough for anyone not in the right wing media bubble. Edit: Also, you're using a tu quoque defense of your sources. Try actually defending them instead. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:35 Doodsmack wrote: Thanks for repeating the liberal media talking point. If you fail to see their bias on the issue, and you ignore the documents, you're simply not going to be getting accurate info on this issue. As for the senate intel committee, its run by Rubio, who was the initial party to be paying fusion GPS before Hillary took over. Rubio has a vested interest in legitimizing the collusion investigation. Your accusation that critics are deaf to the potential of bias is highly hypocritical, basically every source of info you’ve relied on is susceptible to the same criticism, in many cases to a significantly greater extent. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:49 Nevuk wrote: The "liberal" (lol) media isn't even taking it seriously enough to run more than that handful of stories debunking it. Literally no one in this thread would have seen it aside from you and Danglars if you hadn't posted it. If it isn't convincing enough to convince some of the most gullible people on the planet (NYT reporters trying to "both sides are doing it" an issue) then it isn't convincing enough for anyone not in the right wing media bubble. Again if you don't see that the liberal portion of the media (let's be honest, they're liberal) has a vested interest in legitimizing the russia probe, you're going to have your head in the sand on this issue. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:49 farvacola wrote: Your accusation that critics are deaf to the potential of bias is highly hypocritical, basically every source of info you’ve relied on is susceptible to the same criticism, in many cases to a significantly greater extent. I'm just relying on proof and documents. That's what defeats the "biased source" critique. The following facts are irrefutable: 1. US intel intercepted a Russian intel analysis concluding that Hillary was launching an effort to tie trump to russia. 2. Hillary engaged in such an effort. 3. US intel forwarded the info to the FBI to investigate. Despite those facts being proven from the documents, you would prefer to wait until the liberal portion of the media starts paying attention to these facts and documents? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:45 LegalLord wrote: Maybe it should be, but it’s not likely that it will be. Every meaningful piece of aid is stuck in negotiations, the House bill just passed is little more than a token gesture, and since corporations and the stock market have already been bailed out there’s not much incentive to do much more to help the more vulnerable people and businesses. Yes, it’s obvious to anyone that there’s a crisis boiling beneath the surface of a strangely rosy picture of the economy, but that’s been true for months. If they wanted to pass more aid, August was the time to do it. Three Republicans incapacitated due to coronavirus either forces them to compromise to get the votes they need, or to shelve any plan to get that legislation through. The Supreme Court nomination clearly looks like a bigger priority for the Senate than a stimulus that the wealthy don’t need. And that's the key part. They don't call McConnell the Grim reaper of the Senate for nothing, putting the blame squarely on "both sides" is frankly unconscionable. There's one party that has clearly different ideas of who needs what in times of need. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:56 Doodsmack wrote: I'm just relying on proof and documents. That's what defeats the "biased source" critique. The following facts are irrefutable: 1. US intel intercepted a Russian intel analysis concluding that Hillary was launching an effort to tie trump to russia. 2. Hillary engaged in such an effort. 3. US intel forwarded the info to the FBI to investigate. Despite those facts being proven from the documents, you would prefer to wait until the liberal portion of the media starts paying attention to these facts and documents? Your reliance on supposedly irrefutable facts tells me you haven’t thought very hard on how facts can be presented in a multitude of ways that impact on the manner in which they bear on other facts, that’s the cornerstone of fact pleading as an essential element of preliminary legal dispute resolution. Every single time your presentation implicates a question regarding bias, your resolve the ambiguity in favor of one specific angle. That’s excellent evidence of bias on your part, and you’d do well to recognize how your persistent accusations of liberal media bias are themselves loaded with presumptions that require leaps many are not willing to make. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:52 Doodsmack wrote: Again if you don't see that the liberal portion of the media (let's be honest, they're liberal) has a vested interest in legitimizing the russia probe, you're going to have your head in the sand on this issue. OK, this is what is happening over and over here. 1. You post flawed information from a disreputable source. 2. Your source's story is called into question due to its flaws by numerous journalists (the story, not the source) 3. You attack the journalists as biased, saying that because they don't agree with your conclusion that they are "liberal" 4. When it's pointed out that this defense is an example of both circular logic and tu quoque logical fallacies, you insist that the person is blind and run away. Defend against the arguments they're making rather than attacking their credibility. In a battle of pure credibility, no conservative media outlet that will breathlessly report this shit is going to come out ahead. Nor will any Trump admin official. They've all shown a pattern of lying or selectively choosing the facts so frequently that they have lost the benefit of the doubt. Unless a "liberal media" outlet backs up them, then we aren't going to give their ideas any credit. Also, if you want to keep pretending that you aren't biased you need to stop referring to all normal media as the "liberal media". It's like calling them "Democrat Governors" instead of "Democratic Governors". It's language only used by those on the right. Leftist media does exist - democracy now and alternet are out there, and I don't cite them for proof of anything. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:01 Nevuk wrote: OK, this is what is happening over and over here. 1. You post flawed information from a disreputable source. 2. Your source's story is called into question due to its flaws by numerous journalists (the story, not the source) 3. You attack the journalists as biased, saying that because they don't agree with your conclusion that they are "liberal" 4. When it's pointed out that this defense is an example of both circular logic and tu quoque logical fallacies, you insist that the person is blind and run away. Defend against the arguments they're making rather than attacking their credibility. In a battle of pure credibility, no conservative media outlet that will breathlessly report this shit is going to come out ahead. Nor will any Trump admin official. They've all shown a pattern of lying or selectively choosing the facts so frequently that they have lost the benefit of the doubt. Unless a "liberal media" outlet backs up them, then we aren't going to give their ideas any credit. Also, if you want to keep pretending that you aren't biased you need to stop referring to all normal media as the "liberal media". It's like calling them "Democrat Governors" instead of "Democratic Governors". It's language only used by those on the right. Leftist media does exist - democracy now and alternet are out there, and I don't cite them for proof of anything. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the outlets that are conservative. You should not pretend that the liberal outlets are "normal" rather than liberal. And I already responded to their argument, which is that the russian intel analysis was disinformation. How could it be disinformation if it was true? And why was it referred to the fbi for investigation? We have enough facts proven by documents to ask those questions, and you don't want them answered? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:11 Doodsmack wrote: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the outlets that are conservative. You should not pretend that the liberal outlets are "normal" rather than liberal. And I already responded to their argument, which is that the russian intel analysis was disinformation. How could it be disinformation if it was true? And why was it referred to the fbi for investigation? We have enough facts proven by documents to ask those questions, and you don't want them answered? In your eyes, what makes a source reputable and trustworthy? What is your criteria? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:11 Doodsmack wrote: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the outlets that are conservative. You should not pretend that the liberal outlets are "normal" rather than liberal. And I already responded to their argument, which is that the russian intel analysis was disinformation. How could it be disinformation if it was true? And why was it referred to the fbi for investigation? We have enough facts proven by documents to ask those questions, and you don't want them answered? If you wanted to give me WSJ news articles I would pay attention. Straight up press release from the house GOP leader though? Would you be convinced by a statement from Chuck Schumer's office on how China was trying to help Trump? That's equivalent to the source you posted. Sidenote: Let me show you what an actual leftist site's news stories look like. Democracy Now! - some of their Reporters were literally arrested to keep them from covering the RNC in 2008. I respect them greatly, but I acknowledge that the average person is going to find their stories a little odd: Some of their current headlines (ignoring the obvious Trump health and Election updates): Kate Aronoff: The Climate Crisis Can’t Take 4 More Years of Trump. We Must Push Biden from the Left Pandemic of Repression: Modi Government Crushes Dissent While Ignoring India’s 6 Million COVID Cases Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor: We Must Rethink Our Society, from Policing to the Supreme Court “He Wants Violence in the Streets”: Trump’s “White Supremacist Project” on Full Display at Debate Kingdom of Silence: 2 Years After Khashoggi Murder, New Film Explores Deadly U.S.-Saudi Alliance Federal Officials Ordered to Defend 17-Year-Old Charged with Murdering Protesters Texas Police Authorized Use of Deadly Force at George Floyd Burial Secretive Religious Group Deletes All References of Amy Coney Barrett from Website Dozens of NY Housing Activists Arrested Demanding Halt to Looming Evictions Alternet : Naomi Klein: I fear Trump will exploit his COVID infection to further destabilize the election Proud Boys try to assimilate into Florida GOP as Trump denies knowing extremist group Expert: Uber-funded ballot measure in California would create 'permanent underclass of workers' Matt Gaetz argues Trump catching COVID after ignoring CDC guidance means coronavirus rules don’t work Montana GOP senator got influx of cash after vote to extend investor visa program “rampant” with fraud | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24384 Posts
1. US intel intercepted a Russian intel analysis concluding that Hillary was launching an effort to tie trump to russia. right?2. Hillary engaged in such an effort. 3. US intel forwarded the info to the FBI to investigate. @Nev he said liberal not left fwiw. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote: For my own edification, no one is disputing this: right? @Nev he said liberal not left fwiw. I don’t think so? I mean who really cares at this point? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I would also add that I highly doubt Hillary's campaign was competent enough to actually credibly tie Trump to even his own children. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:17 Mohdoo wrote: In your eyes, what makes a source reputable and trustworthy? What is your criteria? I would base it on the individual story. In the individual story you can often tell what is their spin and what is actual fact. So if an individual story provides documents that prove certain facts, those facts can be trusted. Now if you have a large number of outlets ignoring a particular fact and not reporting on it, that doesn't actually refute the fact. We know the fact is a a fact because we have the documents. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:30 Nevuk wrote: The main dispute is that basically on 1, intel also concluded there was a very high chance it was russian disinfo. I would also add that I highly doubt Hillary's campaign was competent enough to actually credibly tie Trump to even his own children. Now that's a Trump defense if I have ever seen one haha | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24384 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:30 Nevuk wrote: The main dispute is that basically on 1, intel also concluded there was a very high chance it was russian disinfo. I would also add that I highly doubt Hillary's campaign was competent enough to actually credibly tie Trump to even his own children. I don't see what there is to dispute?+ Show Spoiler + 1. US intel intercepted a Russian intel analysis concluding that Hillary was launching an effort to tie trump to russia. Russian intel (and US media for that matter) made that observation/conclusion in 2016 and US intelligence intercepted Russia sharing that information among themselves. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24384 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:42 Nevuk wrote: So, the story is that Hillary's campaign approved a strategy to invent ties between Trump and Russia. Emphasize ties, sure, that's known. But inventing out of whole cloth is the Russian info story that doodsmack is alleging. What story? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Last page, | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Rex vs INexorable
GgMaChine vs HeRoMaRinE
Reynor vs herO
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
