Trump now 1 for 26 on court challenges

[RunInRed 16,409]

 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

5 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i know several trump people that have threatened to go to parler. i had not even heard of parler until a day or two after the election.

Snowflakes need safe spaces. 😉

[RunInRed 16,409]

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

43 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

 

I saw some interesting thought today.  If Romney and say, Collins, decided to caucus as independents on moral grounds, it could force some Senators hand in siding with them to keep the Republican caucus in the Senate strong.

Romney will be 77 when his term ends.  Collins just won, so she's safe for six years.  It's not completely implausible.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

On 11/18/2020 at 12:47 PM, TexasTiger said:

How’d America get so damn crazy?

Right wing talk radio. Fox News. And the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Once the Fairness Doctrine was gone, massive money created an echo chamber of outrage with no required opposing viewpoints. And now folks can use the internet to find other like minded crazies and reinforce each others insanities. Anyway...that's a start.

[aubiefifty 16,791]

1 minute ago, CleCoTiger said:

Right wing talk radio. Fox News. And the death of the Fairness Doctrine. Once the Fairness Doctrine was gone, massive money created an echo chamber of outrage with no required opposing viewpoints. And now folks can use the internet to find other like minded crazies and reinforce each others insanities. Anyway...that's a start.

i agree but i wonder how anyone can agree to do away with a fairness doctrine with a straight face? you would think people would go wait.........what? hell no but here we are.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

5 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i agree but i wonder how anyone can agree to do away with a fairness doctrine with a straight face? you would think people would go wait.........what? hell no but here we are.

Well, recall that it wasn't a "will of the people" thing. (On edit: Not the USSC. Eliminated by Reagan's FCC.) And then came Limbaugh and the rest...

[TexasTiger 12,865]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I saw some interesting thought today.  If Romney and say, Collins, decided to caucus as independents on moral grounds, it could force some Senators hand in siding with them to keep the Republican caucus in the Senate strong.

Romney will be 77 when his term ends.  Collins just won, so she's safe for six years.  It's not completely implausible.

Thought of that possibility. Remote, I think, but if Republicans piss them off...Murkowski already won once as a write in after losing her primary.  Bigger challenge might be Schumer giving up his leadership position.

[1716AU 728]

On 11/18/2020 at 3:41 PM, Grumps said:

So it seems odd that as many crazy people as y'all say are on this forum, that no one here seems to think that Trump won the election. Maybe we are not as crazy as you thought!

Miracles still can happen...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

Crazy and stupid.

[AURex 1,998]

There is ZERO evidence for the Trumperists. ZERO. But of course, that means nothing to the TRUE BELIEVERS.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 11/19/2020 at 3:22 PM, TexasTiger said:

Snowflakes need safe spaces. 😉

I think you know this, but the vast majority of people who have moved to Parler state that they are doing so to avoid censorship. It is, in fact, unrelated to needing a safe space. But, carry on!

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Posted in the Smack Forum too, but y'all need to read this opinion.  This is the case Rudy personally argued in PA.  Judge just completely obliterates Guiliani in the opinion.  Click the whole thread for the opinion and more excerpts too.

 

[TexasTiger 12,865]

6 hours ago, Grumps said:

I think you know this, but the vast majority of people who have moved to Parler state that they are doing so to avoid censorship. It is, in fact, unrelated to needing a safe space. But, carry on!

Right. You carry on with that delusion.🙄

[TitanTiger 20,482]

7 hours ago, Grumps said:

I think you know this, but the vast majority of people who have moved to Parler state that they are doing so to avoid censorship. It is, in fact, unrelated to needing a safe space. But, carry on!

They did it to avoid having their bull**** rumors fact-checked.

[TexasTiger 12,865]

14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They did it to avoid having their bull**** rumors fact-checked.

To maintain their safe space, free from painful facts.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

They did it to avoid having their bull**** rumors fact-checked.

So do you think that Facebook and Twitter censor the left and right somewhat equally? Did Twitter censor info about Trumps supposed tax returns that, if true, were obtained illegally? Did they censor info from Biden's computer that, if true, were obtained via hacking?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

17 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So do you think that Facebook and Twitter censor the left and right somewhat equally? Did Twitter censor info about Trumps supposed tax returns that, if true, were obtained illegally? Did they censor info from Biden's computer that, if true, were obtained via hacking?

I think that over the last four years in particular, the right has been flooding social media with far more dangerous bull**** - about political matters, about COVID, about the election - than the left has.  So they are getting fact-checked more because they are guilty more.

And I don't believe the Trump tax return story and the Hunter Biden laptop story were really equivalent.  I think there were numerous things about the latter that made the entire thing suspect that simply wasn't the case with the former.

[Grumps 3,704]

28 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think that over the last four years in particular, the right has been flooding social media with far more dangerous bull**** - about political matters, about COVID, about the election - than the left has.  So they are getting fact-checked more because they are guilty more.

And I don't believe the Trump tax return story and the Hunter Biden laptop story were really equivalent.  I think there were numerous things about the latter that made the entire thing suspect that simply wasn't the case with the former.

I don't expect you to believe this, but I have seen posts on FB that have  been hidden due to being "Fact checked" that even the Fact Check link says are true. It appears that we disagree as to whether we should be left to interpret for ourselves whether things our friends post are true or not.

Do you think that the info that was stated to be from Hunter Biden's laptop was actually from Hunter Biden's laptop?

[TexasTiger 12,865]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I don't expect you to believe this, but I have seen posts on FB that have  been hidden due to being "Fact checked" that even the Fact Check link says are true. It appears that we disagree as to whether we should be left to interpret for ourselves whether things our friends post are true or not.

Do you think that the info that was stated to be from Hunter Biden's laptop was actually from Hunter Biden's laptop?

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

Do you think that the info that was stated to be from Hunter Biden's laptop was actually from Hunter Biden's laptop?

Do you? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't expect you to believe this, but I have seen posts on FB that have  been hidden due to being "Fact checked" that even the Fact Check link says are true. It appears that we disagree as to whether we should be left to interpret for ourselves whether things our friends post are true or not.

Do you think that the info that was stated to be from Hunter Biden's laptop was actually from Hunter Biden's laptop?

Nope.  Nothing about that story makes any logical sense.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't expect you to believe this, but I have seen posts on FB that have  been hidden due to being "Fact checked" that even the Fact Check link says are true. It appears that we disagree as to whether we should be left to interpret for ourselves whether things our friends post are true or not.

Do you think that the info that was stated to be from Hunter Biden's laptop was actually from Hunter Biden's laptop?

The fact checks are not done by millions of human beings sipping coffee waiting for someone to post the latest dumb conspiracy theory about the vaccine and microchips.  They are algorithms looking for certain word patterns and such.  But they will sometimes flag things in error.  While I haven't personally run across any of these, I have no doubt they happen.

As far as Hunter's laptop goes, I don't know.  The story of how it was acquired and how it came to the FBI's attention has a lot of inconsistencies.  No one has put forth any proof in terms of chain of custody, maybe some security video of the drop-off, or anything.  And no one has been permitted to conduct an independent forensic analysis of the hard drive and the emails.  So while it's possible I just can't say yet. The behavior of those involved in it coming to light is suspicious and the reputation of some is less than one of integrity and reliability.  That fact that so many news organizations including Fox (not to mention most of the staff at the NY Post refusing to put their names on the byline) didn't feel confident in the veracity of it to take the story without said forensic analysis (and were denied that opportunity) is telling in my mind.  So all that to say, it might be his, it might not be.  It might actually be his hard drive unaltered, it might be a hard drive reconstructed with some files of his taken from a hack, it might be his hard drive containing some of his files and then some stuff added to make it all look more sinister.  But until someone comes forth with more than we've been given, it deserves the skepticism it's gotten and deserves to be treated as "less than reliable" news.

Let me put it to you this way:  If Guiliani and the others involved in bringing this thing to light were confident that it was Hunter's laptop and confident everything on that drive was his and there was nothing there added or altered, etc., I believe they wouldnt' have hesitated to allow forensic analysis of it by reputable news orgs.  That they wouldn't - not even for Fox - should give you serious pause.

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The fact checks are not done by millions of human beings sipping coffee waiting for someone to post the latest dumb conspiracy theory about the vaccine and microchips.  They are algorithms looking for certain word patterns and such.  But they will sometimes flag things in error.  While I haven't personally run across any of these, I have no doubt they happen.

As far as Hunter's laptop goes, I don't know.  The story of how it was acquired and how it came to the FBI's attention has a lot of inconsistencies.  No one has put forth any proof in terms of chain of custody, maybe some security video of the drop-off, or anything.  And no one has been permitted to conduct an independent forensic analysis of the hard drive and the emails.  So while it's possible I just can't say yet. The behavior of those involved in it coming to light is suspicious and the reputation of some is less than one of integrity and reliability.  That fact that so many news organizations including Fox (not to mention most of the staff at the NY Post refusing to put their names on the byline) didn't feel confident in the veracity of it to take the story without said forensic analysis (and were denied that opportunity) is telling in my mind.  So all that to say, it might be his, it might not be.  It might actually be his hard drive unaltered, it might be a hard drive reconstructed with some files of his taken from a hack, it might be his hard drive containing some of his files and then some stuff added to make it all look more sinister.  But until someone comes forth with more than we've been given, it deserves the skepticism it's gotten and deserves to be treated as "less than reliable" news.

Let me put it to you this way:  If Guiliani and the others involved in bringing this thing to light were confident that it was Hunter's laptop and confident everything on that drive was his and there was nothing there added or altered, etc., I believe they wouldnt' have hesitated to allow forensic analysis of it by reputable news orgs.  That they wouldn't - not even for Fox - should give you serious pause.

Great points. So if you have a FB friend who does forensic analyses on computers for a living and he shares info about the laptop and why he thinks it is legit and why he thinks it is not legit, then do you think that YOU should be able to determine whether you believe your friend or do you think that the FB algorithms should decide whether you get to even see what your friend thinks.

I admit to being pretty hardcore about censorship, so I may not be as objective as I should be, but I would much rather see complete and total BS and decide for myself whether or not to believe it than to let Twitter or FB decide what it best for me to see. We may disagree on this and we may disagree as to whether FB and Twitter are more likely to censor right-leaning material than left-leaning material. It would not be surprising, would it?