|
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 |
On October 23 2020 04:11 Nevuk wrote:
Yeah when the first thing you do as president is lie about something really dumb and easily provable (how many people were at your inauguration) then no one is ever going to believe you or your allies on important things.
Credibility is a resource that can never be regained once lost. I remember the last time someone posted James O'Keefe in this thread : I pointed out I didn't even need to bother reading the story given the source. Same thing here with doodsmack's sources. The last time I bothered going down the rabbit hole on one, it was absurdly wrong.
What's funny is that the instant I posted something from mother jones, you believed it. This despite you (like me) having been duped by collusion hysteria for three solid years.
|
On October 23 2020 04:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:11 Nevuk wrote:
Yeah when the first thing you do as president is lie about something really dumb and easily provable (how many people were at your inauguration) then no one is ever going to believe you or your allies on important things.
Credibility is a resource that can never be regained once lost. I remember the last time someone posted James O'Keefe in this thread : I pointed out I didn't even need to bother reading the story given the source. Same thing here with doodsmack's sources. The last time I bothered going down the rabbit hole on one, it was absurdly wrong. What's funny is that the instant I posted something from mother jones, you believed it. This despite you (like me) having been duped by collusion hysteria for three solid years. The collusion hysteria that produced a number of instances of either outright collusion or attempts by the Trump campaign to collude?
You and I have very different definitions of hysteria.
On October 23 2020 04:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint. I have explained this to you before this is the price Trump and his administration pay for lying about everything constantly. No one will believe them. You know, basic 'boy who cried wolf' shit. You're actually calling into question the venerated "career civil servants" at the FBI though. Has the FBI made any official statement beyond 'no comment' and 'an investigation is ongoing'?
And yes as the FBI answers to Trump I call them into question. Again, I have explained this to you before.
|
The hysteria was definitely the almost daily "this is going to sink Trump... He's really in trouble now...etc." stuff. A lot of selective amnesia too when it comes to the FBI and their history with the truth.
|
On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint.
You have this problem where you only ever list extremely partisan to the point of being propaganda outlets, and then claim that everything else is "liberal". It appears as if to you, the only non-liberal media outlets are Breitbart and Fox News, which you are willing to trust absolutely. You appear to have a preset set of alternative facts, and if no media outlets report those things you believe to be true, instead of questioning whether they might not be untrue, you decide that all the media outlets who are not reinforcing your beliefs must be evil liberals out to get you.
Regarding the DOJ, the Trump administration has proven again and again that they are absolutely willing to lie about anything, and twist the truth to its absolute limits on anything else. At this point, i would probably rather believe the opposite of anything they say, as that is more likely to be the truth. If you want to get people to believe you, that has to be earned, and especially not wasted. The Trump administration has lied so often that they have negative credibility.
The US regressives have simply decided to ignore any facts they do not agree with, and have started to set up a parallel media society full of stuff which might not be actually true, but which fits their beliefs, and that is all that matters. That is already problematic enough, but you now venture out of that hole, and claim that everyone else who is living in a world slightly connected to actual reality is incorrect, and your rightwing regressive media bubble needs to be trusted, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
|
On October 23 2020 04:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:15 Doodsmack wrote:On October 23 2020 04:11 Nevuk wrote:
Yeah when the first thing you do as president is lie about something really dumb and easily provable (how many people were at your inauguration) then no one is ever going to believe you or your allies on important things.
Credibility is a resource that can never be regained once lost. I remember the last time someone posted James O'Keefe in this thread : I pointed out I didn't even need to bother reading the story given the source. Same thing here with doodsmack's sources. The last time I bothered going down the rabbit hole on one, it was absurdly wrong. What's funny is that the instant I posted something from mother jones, you believed it. This despite you (like me) having been duped by collusion hysteria for three solid years. The collusion hysteria that produced a number of instances of either outright collusion or attempts by the Trump campaign to collude? You and I have very different definitions of hysteria. Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:13 Doodsmack wrote:On October 23 2020 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint. I have explained this to you before this is the price Trump and his administration pay for lying about everything constantly. No one will believe them. You know, basic 'boy who cried wolf' shit. You're actually calling into question the venerated "career civil servants" at the FBI though. Has the FBI made any official statement beyond 'no comment' and 'an investigation is ongoing'? And yes as the FBI answers to Trump I call them into question. Again, I have explained this to you before.
I can't help you if you still think there was collusion. Clearly you are just closed off to any argument that would remotely benefit Donald Trump.
|
On October 23 2020 04:22 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint. You have this problem where you only ever list extremely partisan to the point of being propaganda outlets, and then claim that everything else is "liberal". It appears as if to you, the only non-liberal media outlets are Breitbart and Fox News, which you are willing to trust absolutely. You appear to have a preset set of alternative facts, and if no media outlets report those things you believe to be true, instead of questioning whether they might not be untrue, you decide that all the media outlets who are not reinforcing your beliefs must be evil liberals out to get you. Regarding the DOJ, the Trump administration has proven again and again that they are absolutely willing to lie about anything, and twist the truth to its absolute limits on anything else. At this point, i would probably rather believe the opposite of anything they say, as that is more likely to be the truth. If you want to get people to believe you, that has to be earned, and especially not wasted. The Trump administration has lied so often that they have negative credibility. The US regressives have simply decided to ignore any facts they do not agree with, and have started to set up a parallel media society full of stuff which might not be actually true, but which fits their beliefs, and that is all that matters. That is already problematic enough, but you now venture out of that hole, and claim that everyone else who is living in a world slightly connected to actual reality is incorrect, and your rightwing regressive media bubble needs to be trusted, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Your straw men aside, it's clear this is a bubble vs bubble issue. I at least try to see both sides of an issue (e.g. I acknowledge that Trump is a likely tax cheat) but I certainly can't help those who refuse to do so.
|
|
|
On October 23 2020 04:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint. I think you have confused the word liberal with legitimate.
Well I suppose that's final confirmation that there's a bubble vs bubble issue lol.
User was banned for this post.
|
On October 23 2020 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:22 Simberto wrote:On October 23 2020 03:59 Doodsmack wrote:
Just lazy trust of liberal outlets and lazy distrust of no liberal ones. Despite all the documents, the argument in this thread "the FBI should be ignored on this, the DNI should be ignored, yhe DOJ and conservative outlets should be ignored." Granted I will not be able to convince you otherwise but you should at least be aware of how stubborn your standpoint is on what info should be considered. Only if liberal outlets will report on it will you believe it - a very short sighted and close minded viewpoint. You have this problem where you only ever list extremely partisan to the point of being propaganda outlets, and then claim that everything else is "liberal". It appears as if to you, the only non-liberal media outlets are Breitbart and Fox News, which you are willing to trust absolutely. You appear to have a preset set of alternative facts, and if no media outlets report those things you believe to be true, instead of questioning whether they might not be untrue, you decide that all the media outlets who are not reinforcing your beliefs must be evil liberals out to get you. Regarding the DOJ, the Trump administration has proven again and again that they are absolutely willing to lie about anything, and twist the truth to its absolute limits on anything else. At this point, i would probably rather believe the opposite of anything they say, as that is more likely to be the truth. If you want to get people to believe you, that has to be earned, and especially not wasted. The Trump administration has lied so often that they have negative credibility. The US regressives have simply decided to ignore any facts they do not agree with, and have started to set up a parallel media society full of stuff which might not be actually true, but which fits their beliefs, and that is all that matters. That is already problematic enough, but you now venture out of that hole, and claim that everyone else who is living in a world slightly connected to actual reality is incorrect, and your rightwing regressive media bubble needs to be trusted, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Your straw men aside, it's clear this is a bubble vs bubble issue. I at least try to see both sides of an issue (e.g. I acknowledge that Trump is a likely tax cheat) but I certainly can't help those who refuse to do so.
If everyone but US republicans and their adjacent regressive propaganda outlets is in the same bubble, maybe that bubble is actually correct? It seems to be a huge bubble, if even I as a German who doesn't really consume a lot of US media has ended up in it.
And no, you do not try to see both sides. You don't even try to understand what other people are saying. You just spread the absolute maximum of pro-Trump or anti-Biden stuff that you can find. Currently you are busy trying to paint Biden as as corrupt as possible, while ignoring that no matter how corrupt Biden may be, Trump is at least an order of magnitude or two more corrupt. Which you very conveniently ignore.
As others have said, no one here is a huge Biden fan. We just acknowledge how uniquely bad Trump is. I would vote for a donkey over Trump if i were living in the US.
|
|
|
On October 23 2020 04:15 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:11 Nevuk wrote:
Yeah when the first thing you do as president is lie about something really dumb and easily provable (how many people were at your inauguration) then no one is ever going to believe you or your allies on important things.
Credibility is a resource that can never be regained once lost. I remember the last time someone posted James O'Keefe in this thread : I pointed out I didn't even need to bother reading the story given the source. Same thing here with doodsmack's sources. The last time I bothered going down the rabbit hole on one, it was absurdly wrong. What's funny is that the instant I posted something from mother jones, you believed it. This despite you (like me) having been duped by collusion hysteria for three solid years.
Because I was easily able to find other sources that backed it up. That's not the case here.
The larger the story, the more proof is needed. The allegation being thrown around towards Hunter Biden is massive, and the ny post and Giuliani have refused to provide the necessary info to fully prove or disprove them.
I think you're confused about some very basic aspects of journalism.
It's entirely possible to be a real news outlet with a bias. These outlets, like WSJ, Atlantic, Vox, NYT, yes, even the NYPost, etc. are generally treated as credible and go out of their way to maintain that reputation, including doing things like firing reporters for even hints of impropriety. They may have opinion sections that get out of hand (WSJ and Fox, or Maddow at MSNBC for instance), but they have clear distinction between their opinion and news sections .
Motherjones has broken numerous, large, real stories in the past in accurate manner. The daily caller has not.
The NYPost has, so I didn't discard them out of hand immediately. I did research. Lots and lots of research that I posted in the thread throughout the day. I only fully started to discard it out of hand when it came out that all of the actual reporters who worked on it refused to have their name on it (before that I was fully questioning it, as it sounded really stupid).
538 had some great rules on how to deal with anonymous sources, which is what this is:
1. Multiple sources add up.
2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious.
3. Specifics matter. (ie, "persons said" vs "Adminsration members" vs " DoJ officials", in proceeding levels of trustworthiness)
4. Consider the outlet and the reporters.
5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/
It's a single source, without any specifics given (just that they were also provided to the senate HSC) , from an outlet that does not have a history of breaking important news but does have a history of extreme partisan bias, and is rated as "mixed" by the first media bias site I found (MJ is rated as "High").
The other one I'm going to add is timing : if it breaks <3 weeks before election day, it should be treated much more skeptically (goes true for both pro and anti-trump stories. The NYT chinese bank one was confirmed by Trump's org).
Trump calls everything that disagrees with him fake news. So if you use his definition, then yes, only Brietbart etc. are real, but it's established to everyone that he's a liar, even his supporters.
On October 23 2020 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
The hysteria was definitely the almost daily "this is going to sink Trump... He's really in trouble now...etc." stuff. A lot of selective amnesia too when it comes to the FBI and their history with the truth.
True, though the actual story is just... so dumb that no one would have predicted it (that collusion was attempted by his campaign, but failed due to incompetence). It was never going to bring Trump down unless it were proven he was an actual Russian patsy, as if all he did was accept or solicit aid, Nixon and Reagan had done similar actions in the past.
|
To be honest, as a voter, the fact that they tried to collude with Russia and managed to fuck it up is almost worse than if they had actually colluded. They are a bunch of unpatriotic crooks AND totally incompetent.
|
The three previous posts basically say "my bubble is more legit than yours."
|
On October 23 2020 04:51 Doodsmack wrote:
The three previous posts basically say "my bubble is more legit than yours." When one side actively denies observable reality, that is simply a fact.
|
On October 23 2020 04:43 Nevuk wrote: Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
The hysteria was definitely the almost daily "this is going to sink Trump... He's really in trouble now...etc." stuff. A lot of selective amnesia too when it comes to the FBI and their history with the truth. True, though the actual story is just... so dumb that no one would have predicted it (that collusion was attempted by his campaign, but failed due to incompetence). It was never going to bring Trump down unless it were proven he was an actual Russian patsy, as if all he did was accept or solicit aid, Nixon and Reagan had done similar actions in the past.
I remember lots of people saying that at the start.
EDIT: Trump jr & sr still demonstrated clear willingness to collude. The only question is whether they succeeded or were too incompetent to do so. Would you guys believe that's a doodsmack quote from ~2 years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
On October 23 2020 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:43 Nevuk wrote: On October 23 2020 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
The hysteria was definitely the almost daily "this is going to sink Trump... He's really in trouble now...etc." stuff. A lot of selective amnesia too when it comes to the FBI and their history with the truth. True, though the actual story is just... so dumb that no one would have predicted it (that collusion was attempted by his campaign, but failed due to incompetence). It was never going to bring Trump down unless it were proven he was an actual Russian patsy, as if all he did was accept or solicit aid, Nixon and Reagan had done similar actions in the past. I remember lots of people saying that at the start. EDIT: Show nested quote + Trump jr & sr still demonstrated clear willingness to collude. The only question is whether they succeeded or were too incompetent to do so. Would you guys believe that's a doodsmack quote from ~2 years ago? Is it really?
Wonder what caused him to jump off the cliff into crazy town.
|
Spain18399 Posts
On October 23 2020 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2020 04:43 Nevuk wrote: On October 23 2020 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
The hysteria was definitely the almost daily "this is going to sink Trump... He's really in trouble now...etc." stuff. A lot of selective amnesia too when it comes to the FBI and their history with the truth. True, though the actual story is just... so dumb that no one would have predicted it (that collusion was attempted by his campaign, but failed due to incompetence). It was never going to bring Trump down unless it were proven he was an actual Russian patsy, as if all he did was accept or solicit aid, Nixon and Reagan had done similar actions in the past. I remember lots of people saying that at the start. EDIT: Show nested quote + Trump jr & sr still demonstrated clear willingness to collude. The only question is whether they succeeded or were too incompetent to do so. Would you guys believe that's a doodsmack quote from ~2 years ago?
I dunno. Is it? I mean, it's been a clear, obvious and very visual slide from a fairly levelheaded central neoliberal poster to an off-the-chain propaganda repeater, but I thought that it started earlier than 2 years ago.
|
On October 23 2020 05:28 Acrofales wrote:
I dunno. Is it? I mean, it's been a clear, obvious and very visual slide from a fairly levelheaded central neoliberal poster to an off-the-chain propaganda repeater, but I thought that it started earlier than 2 years ago.
TBF, Doodsmack never was what I would have called "level-headed" even in his past incarnation. He got served multiple temp-bans for awful posting then too.
His posting is just as garbage as it was before, it's just more noticeable now because being pro-Trump goes against the grain of the thread, whereas he often slipped under the radar when he was a vehement neoliberal because it was mixed in with other people saying roughly similar things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
