American election.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you have no affinity for Donald Trump, you will not mind me pointing out that his success as a politician is based on his understanding and manipulation of that point.

It will be as irrelevant as the rest of your message. But more predictable.

That's just rude.

It is abrupt. I apologize.

However, talk of Trump will still be irrelevant to any discussion of the case. Even if we grant him to be guilty of every charge his worst detractors make of him, that will not wash anybody else of their guilt. That much is patently obvious.

No, we all stand or fall on what WE do, not on what somebody else may or may not have done. And politicians are no different; one does not cleanse another. And seeing as I am not an American, and thus not bound to choose between two bad options, criticizing one is not, for me, a zero-sum game: in criticizing the one, I am not automatically praising the other.

Sorry: in the matter of selecting a government, there are no excuses for naivete. And the naive generally get eaten.

What I have argued in this thread is that the same principle extends to journalism. Now it seems that we agree.

What you're neatly glossing over here is that journalists are people who purport to provide information. They absolutely rely on this impression, and present it to the public as their raison d'être. Moreover, they always self-present as "objective" or "fair" in their reporting, and "comprehensive" in their scope. They pose as the information-gatherers and providers of the public...and especially of the voting public.

Now, we both know they never are all these ideal things. But that's the social function they position themselves to serve: gatekeepers of the information relevant to the public interest. They preen in that role, and we accord them that function, because it used to be that journalism was competitive, and thus if one paper didn't report an important story, we would get it from another. Thus, by competition if not by honesty, all the information would be available to the public: and a "buyer beware" attitude would serve to help sort it all.

The problem of reporter's distortion facts has always been one problem. That could alway be somewhat offset by skepticism, and that could do something to abate the problem of naivete. But the situation is different now. The internet is essentially becoming a monopoly on information: and there's no skeptical defence against information-not-reported-at-all. Even the most wise, cynical person has no safeguards against information he/she is denied access to entirely. That's what Google, Twitter and Facebook have been exposed as having conspired to do: to keep even basic information secret from the public, so that the electorate would not even have the chance to consider it.

And that's the case of the Biden laptop. The public was not merely lied to; they were denied knowledge that it existed, then they were denied knowledge that it contained anything, and they they were denied any information that it implicated "the Big Guy." So their skepticism was of no use to them. It was not that public was merely foolish or naive...it was that they were left totally ignorant by unscrupulous means.

So no, we are not "agreeing" that all the public needed was more cynicism. They were not even given the chance to practice their skepticism.

[Walker]

Here's a thinker who sees the obvious.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... erger.html

There's no need to lie when we have all heard Trump asking his to CHEAT.
Try and get a life!

Well, in addition to the first link that you and Gary can't refute, here's someone else that sees it like me.

The way I see it, this is proof enough that I'm not alone in the universe.
That I have the capacity to resist the propaganda they feed the sheep.
Aha, aha.

‘BIGGEST spin job ever’: Leaked Trump call is media hype, related to lawsuits against Raffensperger
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/04 ... r-1012313/
“Again, the ask is to address the alleged illegal voting, not generating favorable votes for him out of thin air.”

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Here's a thinker who sees the obvious.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... erger.html

There's no need to lie when we have all heard Trump asking his to CHEAT.
Try and get a life!

Well, in addition to the first link that you and Gary can't refute, here's someone else that sees it like me.

The way I see it, this is proof enough that I'm not alone in the universe.
That I have the capacity to resist the propaganda they feed the sheep.
Aha, aha.

‘BIGGEST spin job ever’: Leaked Trump call is media hype, related to lawsuits against Raffensperger
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/04 ... r-1012313/
“Again, the ask is to address the alleged illegal voting, not generating favorable votes for him out of thin air.”

From the bit I heard on the news, Trump was asking him to 'find' the votes he thought were illegal in favour of Biden. It could be taken either way, depending on whichever was you want to take it. It goes without saying how the likes of wokies like Sculptor will take it.

[Sculptor]

Here's a thinker who sees the obvious.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... erger.html

There's no need to lie when we have all heard Trump asking him to CHEAT.
Try and get a life!

Well, in addition to the first link that you and Gary can't refute, here's someone else that sees it like me.

Yeah, you are not the only deluded one on this Forum.
Try and get a life!

[Gary Childress]

There's no need to lie when we have all heard Trump asking his to CHEAT.
Try and get a life!

Well, in addition to the first link that you and Gary can't refute, here's someone else that sees it like me.

The way I see it, this is proof enough that I'm not alone in the universe.
That I have the capacity to resist the propaganda they feed the sheep.
Aha, aha.

‘BIGGEST spin job ever’: Leaked Trump call is media hype, related to lawsuits against Raffensperger
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/01/04 ... r-1012313/
“Again, the ask is to address the alleged illegal voting, not generating favorable votes for him out of thin air.”

From the bit I heard on the news, Trump was asking him to 'find' the votes he thought were illegal in favour of Biden. It could be taken either way, depending on whichever was you want to take it.

I suppose on the face of it, it's not likely to be a scandal (depending on what Raffensperger does in response to the demand). Perhaps his critics are getting desperate looking for something to pin on him. It will be interesting to see if the election is overturned or not. So far, Trump's lawsuits don't seem to be making much traction in the courts.

[Dubious]

You should be so lucky as to have more like Trump.

Only the morons in America, the Alex Jones type, would think so of which you clearly have a preponderance.

[Walker]

Here's a dubious but interesting report.

Have you heard about Lin Wood’s accusations concerning Chief Justice John Roberts and Epstein?

Whoa. That’s something to wonder about.

Pretty far out there but it explains a lot about Robert's decisions.

Journalistic integrity must be keeping it out of the MSM. (Yeah, sure)
Sounds like a story, but it’s not being investigated.

Ghislaine is still locked up. They don’t want her talking to anyone. What to do with her?

Why would a defamation attorney commit slander and libel?
Is he sincere or a mole to take out Trump?

Fake or real?

[Walker]

You should be so lucky as to have more like Trump.

Only the morons in America, the Alex Jones type, would think so of which you clearly have a preponderance.

Come on, man. You can do it better.

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcP9XYYqVw
(election allegory)

[Dubious]

You should be so lucky as to have more like Trump.

Only the morons in America, the Alex Jones type, would think so of which you clearly have a preponderance.

Come on, man. You can do it better.

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcP9XYYqVw
(election allegory)

Alex Jones is the American version of this guy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

Him and Trump have a lot of nice things to say about each other having so much in common.

[attofishpi]

Do you ever watch the news pertaining to the rest of the world? People are drowning from crossing the Mediterranean in little rubber dinghys to get to Europe and then after crossing Europe they are repeating the process to get to the UK.

Why in God's name would anyone go there?

Answer: The USA is too far for little rubber dinghys.

Junkets tend to work for the more distance travels - as in Oz. (a land of intelligence and ACTUAL freedom)

..the most pathetic question must remain, why would people travel to the most persecuted land in the land of total hypocrisy where freedom means $$$money so long as USA remains THE most incarcerated population on the planet where freedom is factored in to capitalism of the elite that run the entire corrupt shit show?

Why would anyone want to go to USA? Hot dogs? Fried Chicken? Conversation where a child of Europe could dominate intellectual conversation? An obsession with guns and violence?

Truly Wan'N'ker what does the US offer for a 'great' nation? Pick your words wisely, and do try to understand what wisdom actually is.

[henry quirk]

Why would anyone want to go to USA?

legit question in light of 'murica's high immigration numbers (both legal & illegal)

legally...

According to the United Nations, the United States has the highest number of immigrants (foreign-born individuals), with 48 million in 2015, five times more than in Saudi Arabia (11 million) and six times more than in Canada (7.6 million).

illegally...

Estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. range from 10.5 million to 12 million, or approximately 3.2%–3.6% of the population.

so why are these folks comin' to 'murica if it's such a craphole?

[Walker]

Obviously, the country doesn't need a sales pitch, and stark contradictions actually can co-exist in the same head.

What a mystery.

Seems like these days it takes less and less to confound the rubes from down under.

[Walker]

Truly Wan'N'ker what does the US offer for a 'great' nation? Pick your words wisely, and do try to understand what wisdom actually is.

The name is Walker.

(That statement requires some kind of response from you)

[tillingborn]

However, talk of Trump will still be irrelevant to any discussion of the case. Even if we grant him to be guilty of every charge his worst detractors make of him, that will not wash anybody else of their guilt. That much is patently obvious.

No, we all stand or fall on what WE do, not on what somebody else may or may not have done. And politicians are no different; one does not cleanse another. And seeing as I am not an American, and thus not bound to choose between two bad options, criticizing one is not, for me, a zero-sum game: in criticizing the one, I am not automatically praising the other.

Point taken.

Sorry: in the matter of selecting a government, there are no excuses for naivete. And the naive generally get eaten.

What I have argued in this thread is that the same principle extends to journalism. Now it seems that we agree.

What you're neatly glossing over here is that journalists are people who purport to provide information.

I don't think it is fair that you dismiss an argument spread over 20 pages as "neatly glossing over". I have made my point that while it might be lovely were all journalists utterly impartial, it simply isn't the case. Either "there are no excuses for naivete", or failing to understand that nearly every news outlet has an editorial stance is an excuse for selecting a government you don't want.

They absolutely rely on this impression, and present it to the public as their raison d'être. Moreover, they always self-present as "objective" or "fair" in their reporting, and "comprehensive" in their scope. They pose as the information-gatherers and providers of the public...and especially of the voting public.

Now, we both know they never are all these ideal things. But that's the social function they position themselves to serve: gatekeepers of the information relevant to the public interest. They preen in that role, and we accord them that function, because it used to be that journalism was competitive, and thus if one paper didn't report an important story, we would get it from another. Thus, by competition if not by honesty, all the information would be available to the public: and a "buyer beware" attitude would serve to help sort it all.

Isn't that exactly what I said? You complain that 'the MSM' didn't report a story that, as I pointed out, was all over Fox, AON, Newsmax and many other conservatives outlets.

The problem of reporter's distortion facts has always been one problem. That could alway be somewhat offset by skepticism, and that could do something to abate the problem of naivete. But the situation is different now. The internet is essentially becoming a monopoly on information: and there's no skeptical defence against information-not-reported-at-all. Even the most wise, cynical person has no safeguards against information he/she is denied access to entirely. That's what Google, Twitter and Facebook have been exposed as having conspired to do: to keep even basic information secret from the public, so that the electorate would not even have the chance to consider it.

And that's the case of the Biden laptop. The public was not merely lied to; they were denied knowledge that it existed, then they were denied knowledge that it contained anything, and they they were denied any information that it implicated "the Big Guy." So their skepticism was of no use to them. It was not that public was merely foolish or naive...it was that they were left totally ignorant by unscrupulous means.

So no, we are not "agreeing" that all the public needed was more cynicism. They were not even given the chance to practice their skepticism.

I didn't suggest that the public needed more cynicism; at least as I understand it, it is not a synonym for scepticism. I don't think that many people who might have been swayed by the Hunter Biden laptop story were not aware of it, so I must respectfully disagree that people didn't practice their scepticism; at least not those who didn't jump to a conclusion.

[Walker]

Estimates of the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. range from 10.5 million to 12 million, or approximately 3.2%–3.6% of the population.

11 million is the number from twenty+ years ago.