who do you believe ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The traditional news business has undergone a steady and steep contraction for quite some time. While yellow, sensationalist and politically biased newspapers have always been a big part of the picture, it was a phenomena that the serious news outlets were at least embarrassed by. There were taboos against reporters working for campaigns, ever. In fact if your worked in PR, or for any campaign, you tended to have a lifetime exclusion from reporting on that issue, and often from being a reporter at all.

So when a city had one print newspaper there was an effort to be or at least appear politically neutral, even if the ownership and certainly reporters and editors, were not.

With the proliferation of news outlets, which we saw with the advent of TV news, and then 24/7 "cable" news, and nowadays with most people under 40 getting their news from social media, there is an, stunningly for our supposedly enlightened age, intensification of bias through social bubble phenomena. People like to read, hear, watch what confirms their extant views -- and now they can solely do so.

Essentially a) the news business has evolved into a highly partisan product, with the objective data showing a heavy skew left compared to the rest of society. And b) the consumers have in large part become narrow confirmation bias hunters and consumers.

As far as even subject expertise, with the decline of "beats" as areas of expertise, and now almost solely about of having sources as opposed to expertise in the reporters themselves, with those sources having partisan interests the credibility of the news business has rightfully declined.

For example the guns, gun control, gun violence reporter on my local NPR station is the recipient of a large cash grant from a gun control organization (as are scores of "gun expert" reporters across the US through the same program). There stories are as a result highly biased and virtually always contain objective falsehoods as well. In fact since the taboo against revolving door and accepting outside money from directly involved adovacy groups has fallen

With attitudes on the 2A having become more and more partisan (and this is no longer the "thirds rail" but the most partisan, poltical party aligned issue, there is today, one can expect more and more ignorance and disinformation from the press on that subject

As far as my daily news consumption I read the WSJ and the FT. My local paper is owned by Jeff Bezos and staffed entirely by people from one side. I do listen to BBC and NPR on my commute. But I am careful to believe anything since when they cover a subject that you know, you cant help but notice these sober news sources are very often wrong or biased so you have to make that assumption on their coverage of subjects you don't know.

f course most of us over 40 tune to the 24/7 news channels when a major event occurs but are should avoid the "talking heads" since that is just a stable of poltical operatives and position advocates.

Again as far as I can tell most people under 40, and EVERYONE under 30, get virtually all of their news, as well as indoctrination on how to contextualize it, it from their twitter bubble, which is essentially a mob curation or ochlocratic news regime.
 
I grew up with men who did not have much education (my dad did not graduate high school, he was in WWII)

My wifes father never finished high school.

I framed houses for a man who did not get past 8th grade.

All the men I grew up with did read, they were intelligent because they worked at it and informed themselves. I did not alwyas agree with my wife's father, but we had great discussion (at age 45 he to signed up to serve in WWII)

My Framing boss? He could lay out half a floor on a large house from memory. He and his wife did the NYT cross word puzzle. Yea, he was an Oakie, but 8th grade or not, he was a smarter than I was.

Is the media right? Often less than right than they don't understand how things work, the data is weak. The generality is reasonably accurate. How many of you know how to fix an Automatic Transfer Switch?

But, like those men I grew up with, I worked at it. You can sort it out. You just have to work at it. You want to be spoon fed? Then no, you are lost.

Funny what those old farts over came and accomplished without the possibilities I had when I was able to graduate high school. I was only held back by my failing to take opportunities that were there.

I never complained about it either. Others had it much worse. I am sorry for those who have it worse and did not even have the opportunities I had.

I told my Uncle one time I was amazed at what he got through (Bastogne with the 101st) which says more than enough. His response was, I am amazed we did it as well, I can't tell you how we did it now, but we did.

Sorting through the news? Not so hard. Ask those men about WWII, hard does not begin to describe it.
 
RC20 , I know what you mean . I’ve always believed that although I’m not book smart , I’m far ftom unintelligent. Oh how I wish I was just as curious back then as I am now about things , I’d be a hell of a lot smarter now but when I was younger I simply was not a very curious person . If it worked I did not care how or why . I’m now pretty much the opposite to the point I want to know how everything works even if it doesn’t matter to the overall result .
 
"The lunatic fringe is the only source of that statement. Sorry, unsubstantiated statements like that aren't doing anything but riling up some of us."

Coomer is nowhere to be found (unless something changed), along with 100 or so other Dominion employees who have also cancelled their social media profiles.

I don't know what riled you up, unless you misunderstood what I said, or maybe you think rigged elections are a good idea.
 
I don't suppose it's possible that Dominion employees are on the receiving end of death threats. :rolleyes: Whenever credible evidence is presented that this election was rigged, we should all support investigating it. So far, nada. Just innuendo and conspiracy rumors.
 
Whenever credible evidence is presented that this election was rigged, we should all support investigating it. So far, nada.
Click to expand...

To be fair here , all real investigations are being blocked . You need to do a real investigation to find the problems you suspect as being wrong . If there was hard evidence they would not be asking to look deeper , they would be demanding a new election .

I personally have issue with the signatures , why you ask . Because I signed my voter card 30+ years ago and purposefully changed my signature about 15 or 20 years ago to be easier and quicker to sign .

I've never voted by mail until this year which means my signature has never needed to be verified . I'm 100% confident that my signature this year looked nothing like the one they used to verify , so did my vote count and if it did why , it shouldn't have based on the checks and balances I was told were in place to make sure election fraud would not take place .

Oh and there's the small mater of them sending me two ballets to my home in my name .
IHqZX9.jpg


Which means in theory I could have voted 3 times . While on my way to voting in person I could have dropped the two mail in ballots into the mail box . Nobody could have proved who sent the mail in ballots because the signatures would not match anyways . At one point I thought about mailing both ballots in with the exact opposite votes as each other and let then figure out which was the real ballot lol . Of course I did not commit any voter fraud but with out even trying I could have disenfranchised two other voters . Wonder what one could do with just a bit of effort ????

Also why does the number of discrepancies need to be enough to overturn the election to look into the problem further . Does anyone believe if they found 1k problems they were the only problems there were ? That logic is flawed in many ways . It would be like me thinking since I'm the only one that I know for sure that got two ballots in the mail . I must be the only one in my state to get two ballots . Now I get it , If I come forward and say I received two ballots "you must stop everything " That's absurd but when there are thousands here and thousands there . How is that not at least worth a deeper dive ? I forget which state but they have had historically about a 1.5 to 2% rejection rate of mail in ballots but this year they had less then a 1% rejection rate . Simple logic says that can't be true . With all the extra mail in ballots some how there are less problems not more especially with all the first time mail in voters ? Not only did most of the people that usually screw up there ballots didn't , all the new people didn't either ???? No there is NO PROOF there but again if there was proof they would not be asking to look harder at the problem they'd want a new election .

I did not vote for either major candidate but I do have serous questions about our voting systems and how they are done . In all actuality until trump came along and all the federal investigations . I thought the FBI and CIA and others were totally legit and above political influences . Yes yes I knew there was a wink here and a nod there once and awhile but to find out what high ranking officials were saying under oath behind closed doors was the exact opposite as what they were saying on the news shows gives me great concern so please don't tell me there's nothing here because some high ranking official says so on CNN .

As messed up as Sydney Powell is on this election stuff , Would we have ever known how bad Flinn got railroaded by the very country he spent a life time defending if it weren't for her and her team ? Thank god he got new council half way through or the truth would have never come out . OMG and don't get me started on judge Sullivan

Only time will tell if Trump was the best or worst thing to ever happen to this country . However I'd bet there is not one of us here that doesn't have there eyes open more then they ever did before Trump came along .
 
Last edited:
My bartender,,,, yes, I believe everything she says when she takes a deep breath,,,Hmmm, wonder what color her eyes are??

Oh, yeah, and Uncle Charley’s barber.
 
Posted by Metal God

To be fair here , all real investigations are being blocked . You need to do a real investigation to find the problems you suspect as being wrong . If there was hard evidence they would not be asking to look deeper , they would be demanding a new election
Click to expand...

Evidently, thus far there has been no presentation of evidence pointing to fraud. There have been a few incidents that are anecdotal, similar to your receiving two ballots. And in regards to voting more than once, the punishment is fairly draconian.

None of the issues you pointed out indicate any coordinated attempt at massive voter fraud. Opportunity does not indict.

This presidential election has me bamboozled. Why on earth is the party of law and order that proclaims self righteous patriotism playing along with the candidate that is tearing at the fabric of our democratic institution of elections?
 
CR . That last part sounds interesting to me . It’s my understanding the candidate is availing him self of the very thing we all hold dear , The judicial system to work out disputes . I’m assuming your fabric tearing comment goes to what’s being said in the media and not the candidates right to challenge in court?

It’s Also my understanding that 80% of the cases that have been dismissed were procedural things that are either moot now or the courts are claiming they don’t have standing to avoid ruling on their merits . A few judges are saying that they need to start in state courts not at the federal level and in that case they have to wait for the certification . Then they will have standing but until certification the court seem to be claiming nobody has standing .
 
Carmdy , that voting machine footage is one of the typesof things they presented in court . The problem with that is that its years old so the court can ingnore it . It’s my understanding many arguments being presented are from other election and are just trying to show what “could” happen or may have happened . I have to say I agree that is not evidance of wrong doing because it happened before . That doesn’t mean it happened hear .
 
Metal God
Applying pressure on election officials and legislators in attempts to throw out election results, because Trump keeps saying he won by a lot is in itself a violation of ethics. The judges have been emphatic in their rulings. If Trump or his lawyers have proof of the assertion that he won by a lot, they sure aren't showing it in court.

Here's my conspiracy theory: Trump is likely in big trouble after his term is done. State courts have investigated him and his businesses and are lying in wait. I don't have proof, but he sure is hanging on like he's afraid for his well being. This makes more sense to me than his allegations of massive voter fraud. ;)
 
CR you are talking above my pay grade now . I’m sure there has to be some dialogue with these officials if you want to challenge their assertions . What is challenging and were challenging turns to intimidations I don’t know . I haven’t heard much about all of that in so much is hearing people say they felt that they have been intimidated . But hey nowadays saying 100% factual things can trigger people into having feelings of harassment . If you could I’d like a couple links through private message if you’d like the intimidation claims I’d like to read more about that because I admit I’m a little behind the curve on that one .
 
My Daughter joined the Air Force two weeks before 9/11/2001. She's been in Texas since 2002.

Every election the send us a ballot for her. After over a decade of me calling them and tell them that she doesn't live here, I finally decided to stop bothering. They still send the ballots for her, here. I destroy them.

I think the details of the election lawsuits are a bit off topic which was about media reporting and who you believe, not what was being reported in specific cases.
 
My Dad had a statement on the local newspaper. The only part of it that was undeniably true? Was on the front page. It was the price, inside a little circle.
 
“Who do you believe?” vs. “Why do you believe” might be part of our problem.

“Who do you believe” leans us towards faith in an authority figure. In that case, we want an authority that has a sterling reputation with everyone, even internationally. We want someone with a reputation for thorough, balanced and accurate reporting, a sterling track record of being correct and an equally sterling reputation of admitting and correcting errors when errors are found.

“Why do we believe” makes us form a balanced judgement and examine our own personal biases as to what we want to believe without evidence.

I could say that I believe Jeff Quinn (rip), Paul Harrel, and Randy Wakeman but I add “because they show the results of their testing as well as interpret it and I hope they don’t fudge their data because I think it’s in their best interests to be truthful.”

Jeff’s reviews expressed a moderate opinion and showed results from is Ransom Rest- accuracy testing removing as much of the human factor as possible.

Paul shoots at his “meat target” simulation of leather over beef rib meat over oranges to simulate lungs. The results are qualitative rather than quantitative, but qualitative analysis is an accepted scientific method IF done correctly. I took a grad school class on qualitative analysis from a big university, so... look at Paul’s analysis of “which is a better deer rifle- .44 magnum or 30-30.” He shows both targets with extensive and comparable damage. He shoots both and shows they are light carbines both with acceptable hunting accuracy and uses commonly available ammunition (not boutique stuff). He notes that both choices are very popular hunting choices. His conclusion: both are very good. 30-30 a little better over 100 yards, 44 Magnum a little better under 100 yards and he shows the math to compare energies and explains why raw numbers are not the whole story. It’s a complete analysis. No radical claims are made without extraordinary amounts of evidence.

Why do I believe Paul Harrell? He shows his evidence. He does the math and explains it. He tells his experiences and he does not have a clear dog in the fight. Not because he’s watcha call an expert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top