US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2703

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

On October 04 2020 04:17 Mohdoo wrote:


In your eyes, what makes a source reputable and trustworthy? What is your criteria?

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.

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.

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.

On October 04 2020 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


What story?