2020 Political Chatter

[Corso]

Stop pretending that there's a double standard. The investigation into Hunter Biden has been covered on every channel and news website. There just isn't any obvious or public knowledge of actual wrong doing yet. If he did do something wrong, by all means throw the book at him.

After the election, sure NOW there are reports. Pre-election? Not so much. Oh well, I could link a page full of stuff, I'll just do this:

https://amac.us/bozell-to-levin-surv...r-biden-story/

I'm not pretending there is a double standard. Pretending there isn't is living in fantasy land.

[mjbabcock]

From the linked article...Mark Levin: Quote from The Washington Times

Basically they cite the equivalent of the Huffington post...yeah, you’re right. Trump won. Let’s invalidate the election and just hand it to him.

This election is over and done. Luckily we can watch Trumplestiltskin use evidence free claims to rip our country to shreds. Just today in WA there were dueling rioters that had the lovely “proud boys” marching on our capital. Can you imaging if our current president acknowledged his loss and implored his followers to support Biden?

Our nation is fucked.

[htwoopup]

Only a one and a half standard....DOJ was silent on a Hunter Biden (son of the guy running) investigation in this election and was also silent on a Donald Trump Campaign (the guy running) on Russian/ Campaign working relationship in 2016. The half is the Comey thing where he opened his mouth about a Hillary thing (how many investigations and no charges against anyone as opposed to how many and how many guilty on Trump)...just saying. Facts matter.

[mjbabcock]

Did they comment about the Ivanka depositions on misuse of inauguration funds?
Or their tax fraud from “consulting fees” for their Vancouver hotel that served to transfer wealth tax free?

[zachateseverything]

After the election, sure NOW there are reports. Pre-election? Not so much. Oh well, I could link a page full of stuff, I'll just do this:

https://amac.us/bozell-to-levin-surv...r-biden-story/

I'm not pretending there is a double standard. Pretending there isn't is living in fantasy land.

There are reports now that the justice department actually announced that they were launching an investigation. Prior to that you had Rudy making wild accusations and news services reporting on that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/u...k-twitter.html

Again, there's no credible public information that shows Hunter Biden did something illegal. If he did, throw the book at him. I mean jeebus, you have to try to be this dense.

[Clean39T]

I mean jeebus, you have to try to be this dense.

It's called willful ignorance - the main currency of trolls and what-about-ists..

[Matthew Strongin]

This must stop.
There is no steal.
There is another contagion besides the Covid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...728_story.html

Actually, there is a steal...or attempt at it. Trump and his followers, the very people in that article you linked who at every defeat are attempting to contort reality to fit their narrative that Trump won, are trying to steal the election. The amount of saddening imagery created by the article you linked is depressing. What country are we in.

[Matthew Strongin]

Only a one and a half standard....DOJ was silent on a Hunter Biden (son of the guy running) investigation in this election and was also silent on a Donald Trump Campaign (the guy running) on Russian/ Campaign working relationship in 2016. The half is the Comey thing where he opened his mouth about a Hillary thing (how many investigations and no charges against anyone as opposed to how many and how many guilty on Trump)...just saying. Facts matter.

Let's not forget that the current DOJ is supremely anti-Trump and led by a left-wing activist named Bill Barr. Oh, wait.

[vertical_doug]

After the election, sure NOW there are reports. Pre-election? Not so much. Oh well, I could link a page full of stuff, I'll just do this:

https://amac.us/bozell-to-levin-surv...r-biden-story/

I'm not pretending there is a double standard. Pretending there isn't is living in fantasy land.

You should be skeptical of an interview that starts 'It an indisputable fact' ... This is a sure sign of opinion. The heavy use of statistics is to give a veneer of credibility, but again the numbers are surely made up. This is true for both sides. It was widely reported at the time since NYPOST went into over drive at the time to run article after article. The claim by the right it was suppressed is another common tactic to say something occurred which did not occur. It is a bit like the election fraud which has no evidence. So if anything, this is just trying to change the narrative from the election was stolen with voter fraud (no fraud) to the election was stolen because the voters were kept in the dark. This is pretty common technique to keep morphing the argument.

I think why the ploy of Giuliani failed because it closely mirrored the ploy he used in October 2016 to get the laptop info about Hillary leaked and forcing Comey to bite. I think Barr did not want to play the fool.

I hope they announce a special prosecutor to investigate. We need to put the matter to bed. The stuff they seem to be focusing on with Joe appear to be 2017/18 when he was out of office and a private citizen. The prior tax problems for Hunter, are Hunter's problems.

[Corso]

It's called willful ignorance - the main currency of trolls and what-about-ists..

Congrats! Using the triple play of labeling from the ivory tower on the left side of the mirror. Must be nice to be perfect.

[ides1056]

AMAC, huh?

Smells like the Onion.

[Too Tall]

After the election, sure NOW there are reports. Pre-election? Not so much. Oh well, I could link a page full of stuff, I'll just do this:

https://amac.us/bozell-to-levin-surv...r-biden-story/

I'm not pretending there is a double standard. Pretending there isn't is living in fantasy land.

Double dog dare you to begin constructive narratives about conservative politics which is not centered on what about XYZ.

This is not a criticism, only a suggestion for engaged conversations.

[Corso]

Double dog dare you to begin constructive narratives about conservative politics which is not centered on what about XYZ.

This is not a criticism, only a suggestion for engaged conversations.

Fair enough Josh, but after reading 4 years of folks here doing EVERTHING (what-aboutism, straw man arguments, not credible links, etc) I'm accused of without recourse, it shows the clear bias of the folks in the OT stable. I've never once come out of the gate throwing personal insults, and if I done the same, it's been in response to one.

There has been absolute garbage posted here about the President and his family. Some with solid critical points, others with 4th grade "humor". The latter have not been constructive or engaging, and yet, they go unchecked by the mods. How many anti-Trump links from the onion and late night comedians has there been here, yet those are sources to be taken seriously?

So why is that? I'll answer my question. It's pretty clear which side of the fence the majority (including mods) here lean. That's not a criticism, just pretty clear observation. Not many right leaning contributors bother posting, as many have simply given up. Is that the goal here?

IMO: Just as many of you can't see a double standard with the media, the collective "you" can't see the double standard in responses to my postings either.

[djg714]

7 million votes.

[Clean39T]

Double dog dare you to begin constructive narratives about conservative politics which is not centered on what about XYZ.

Such a thing does not exist. There is only the position of reactivity. Conservative (aka., regressive) politics are simple to explain: they are anti-living wage, anti-human rights, anti-dignity, anti-voting, anti-liberty, anti-clean air, anti-clean water, anti-health care, anti-freedom....ad nauseum. Effectively anti- anything that seeks to lift up all citizens regardless of race, gender, religion, or economic station. They don't think their life can be improved and simply want vengeance for grievances they've been told exist. And they are literally willing to die to support a system that keeps them insecure and ensures their lot in life will continue to degrade as time goes by to the benefit of the grifter class.

Change my mind.

[echappist]

Fair enough Josh, but after reading 4 years of folks here doing EVERTHING (what-aboutism, straw man arguments, not credible links, etc) I'm accused of without recourse, it shows the clear bias of the folks in the OT stable. I've never once come out of the gate throwing personal insults, and if I done the same, it's been in response to one.

What does "accused of without recourse" mean? Did you meant to say "accused without evidence", or did you meant to say you have no one to whom plead your case.

There has been absolute garbage posted here about the President and his family. Some with solid critical points, others with 4th grade "humor". The latter have not been constructive or engaging, and yet, they go unchecked by the mods. How many anti-Trump links from the onion and late night comedians has there been here, yet those are sources to be taken seriously?

I'll list each one of these separately and address how I (would approach it if I were the owner of a forum); note, that this is not me leveling criticism at the mods here.

1). Solid critical points. Those stay.
2). 4th grade "humor". Those go. I recall someone making the implication that the first lady (however liable she is to valid criticism) is a pet/dog. That's uncalled for, when there are so many other valid criticisms of her.
3). Anti-Trump links from the Onion and late night comedians. If those links don't fall into category 2) above, they stay. The best politics-based comedy routines are those that expose hypocrisy, cake-ism, etc. They elicit a laughter in the way of, well this is truly messed up, but at least we can still have a laugh at it. I'll further note that when someone links to the Onion, people (at least people here) know it's satire and not to be taken seriously.

Now, re: your link to AMAC, for those who didn't bother clicking through, the title of the article reads: "Bozell to Levin: Survey Shows 4.6% of Democrats Would Not Have Voted for Joe Biden Had They Known Hunter Biden Story". Context here: the top of the AMAC website literally has the following banner (see below).

2020_1213_SMH.jpg

So an already biased publisher, where the publisher is literally furthering lies (that have been rejected at least 35 out of the 36 times they have been litigated in courts of various jurisdictions). Yet we are supposed to take this seriously?

And that's before we get to the actual content of the message.

The first few paragraphs reads:

(CNS News) — Media Research Center (MRC) Founder and President Brent Bozell laid out on the Mark Levin Show on Tuesday survey data indicating that the media’s bias by omission resulted in the defeat of President Donald Trump.

Bozell explained that it is well-known how the mainstream media dedicates over 90% of its Trump airtime to negative coverage of the president, but the MRC president argues that their omission of Trump’s successes and Joe Biden’s failures is much more dangerous.

“We took a survey after the elections, on the night of the elections, and asked Democrats if they knew about the Hunter Biden story. A full 36% of Democrats knew nothing about the Hunter Biden story,” Bozell said. “Further, 4.6% of Democrats said they would not have voted for Joe Biden had they known this story. We then took that 4.6% and we spread it across the electoral landscape.”

“Guess what? Had they known this story, Joe Biden would not have carried Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Trump lead would have been definitive in North Carolina. Meaning what? Meaning that Donald Trump would have won 289 electoral votes and would be the re-elect president of the United States. ”

Let's dissect the last two paragraphs, which really provide more questions than answers.

From the third paragraph:

1) Which story concerning Mr. Hunter Biden? Are we talking laptops, taxes, or something else?
2) How was the poll conducted, specifically, exact phrasing of question, how the voters were reached, etc?
3) What are the uncertainties for the 36% and 4.6% figures?
4) 4.6% of which survey cohort? This last one is important, because couched in the phrasing of the news release, it either means a much smaller number than what is intimated or represents an inability to convey ideas in an intelligible manner. Specifically, "would not have voted" is a past tense subjunctive, implying that it refers to people who didn't know and would have acted differently had they known. This would not apply to those who knew about whatever Hunter Biden story (64% according to this survey), because they voted for Biden despite of whatever story is swirling around his son. So, presumably not 4.6% of all Democrats surveyed, but rather 4.6% of the 36% who didn't know about whatever nebulously-defined Hunter Biden story. 4.6% of 36% is 1.66%.
5). Lastly, how representative is the survey, specifically, how representative is the survey with respect to Democrats in each of the states mentioned?

The fourth paragraph is a sleight of hand without further clarification, for it is made on the assumption that the 4.6% of the participants were geographically representative (which the article appears to imply but does not state). Furthermore, there appears to be some really shoddy math and assumption going on, namely, he is taking the number of votes for Mr. Biden in each of the states mentioned and discounting that vote by 4.6%. Except that, too, is a fallacy, for it's incorrect to assume that registered Democrats accounted for all of Mr. Biden's votes in each of the states. In fact, one would think that independents would be even more affected by nonstories such as this, but lo-and-behold, Mr. Bozell doesn't even bother with polling independents. Why is that salient and pertinent? Because if one were to discount 1.66% off of Mr. Biden's votes in each of the four states mentioned (as opposed to the 4.6% that he appears to be doing), the only states affected would be AZ, GA, and WI; and PA would still go to Mr. Biden. So Mr. Bozell really needs to have a full breakdown of all electorates, before he could claim that this would have had an effect in PA.

Though having said all that, I doubt the survey was a) representative and b) applicable to the electorate of each of the four states mentioned. Furthermore, given the severe bias of the sources (both the publisher and the person quoted), this published story lacks even more credence. Lastly, the Laptop story was well publicized in various news outlets (I've seen it on WaPo and The Guardian), and the fact is, despite all that, Mr. Biden still prevailed in each of the four states mentioned.

[Corso]

Change my mind.

Clearly impossible.

But thank you for demonstrating such a (fill in the blank) point of view. Insert anything but realistic and open minded.

But again, a general reply to recent posts: My point was (and is) the hypocrisy and one sided reporting of anything Trump, NOT defending him, or his actions, or his recent "I won" bullshit actions. But that's always lost on the folks here who blindly put me in bed with the President.

Originally I was in, as in "anyone but Hillary". I've adjusted my opinion, and a believe a few of you who actually read what I post (vs transposing your hatred) know that.

Biden won. And Biden (like President Obama) will be gently treated by the press. No one in the White House press corp will attack him. It will be the polar opposite as it is now.

And we'll all live happily ever after.

[Corso]

Though having said all that, I doubt the survey was a) representative and b) applicable to the electorate of each of the four states mentioned. Furthermore, given the severe bias of the sources (both the publisher and the person quoted), this published story lacks even more credence. Lastly, the Laptop story was well publicized in various news outlets (I've seen it on WaPo and The Guardian), and the fact is, despite all that, Mr. Biden still prevailed in each of the four states mentioned.

I appreciate the time you've put in dissecting the article. I look forward to reading your review the next time a BS left leaning link is used. It shouldn't take long.

[Clean39T]

Clearly impossible.

Maybe if you told us what you stand for - your views on policy issues, etc. - we could have a conversation.

[Matthew Strongin]

I appreciate the time you've put in dissecting the article. I look forward to reading your review the next time a BS left leaning link is used. It shouldn't take long.

Which news sources would be considered BS left leaning? I'm honestly asking. It's hard to argue there's bias in media. Always has been, always will be. I know where the WSJ, WaPo, NYT, Politico, The Atlantic, BBC and the other big ones stand. But none of those are bullshit left or right leaning, though most of them sometimes run editorials that we could all do without. But which news sources that get shared are BS?