American election.

[Walker]

Quote:

"Every one of us who voted for Trump believes that the only reason Biden appeared to walk away with more votes was because of massive election fraud. On Tuesday, during her morning show, Maria Bartiromo dropped what must be, in this crazy year, the mother of all bombshells. According to Bartiromo, an intel source told her that Trump won the election. It's now up to the Supreme Court, said the source, to stop the clock from running so the proper election result can be implemented, returning Trump to the White House.

"Americans are used to losing elections. In a two-party system, after all, one side always loses. Traditionally, the losing party licks its wounds and works to do better next time.

"That changed in 2016, when Democrats refused to accept that Trump had won the election. Without any vote fraud or manipulation, they ginned up a Russia collusion hoax that was long on paranoia and short on facts that showed how Russia got Americans to vote for Trump. The whole thing fell apart with the Mueller Report's reluctant admission that there was no collusion.

"In 2020, things are different: there are dozens of proofs that Democrats gamed the election.

"Some of what they did was just dirty politics. For example, they used the Wuhan Flu to destroy Trump's crown jewel: the American economy. That wasn't fraud; it was just evil because it meant destroying the livelihoods, savings, hopes, and dreams of millions of Americans.

"Democrats also relentlessly castigated Trump as a singularly evil man, right up there with Hitler. Credulous people believed this.

"Democrats also accelerated their years-long efforts to destroy election integrity. In the past, they jettisoned voter ID, implemented motor-voter registration, resisted cleaning old voter rolls, made it easier for illegal aliens to vote, and authorized ballot-harvesting.

"The Wu Flu allowed them to go to town with universal absentee ballots, mail-in voting, and the abolition of ballot deadlines. Indeed, some states got so excited that they forgot to have the Legislature sign off on these changes, making invalid all votes that came in via these illegitimate means.

"And don't let anyone fob you off by claiming that it's not fair to Biden voters suddenly to invalidate their votes just because their Democrat (or Georgia RINO) governments cheated. How about the counter-argument, which is that it's not fair to Trump voters to invalidate their votes because the Biden voters' supported cheating politicians?

"Big Tech and the media helped. Big Tech flooded Democrat zones with money and systematically silenced conservatives, right up to Donald Trump himself. Most nefariously, tech and the media blacked out all news about Hunter Biden's and Joe Biden's corrupt entanglement with China.

"There was also old-fashioned cheating: phony ballots, dead voters, endlessly re-counted ballots, and voting machines that were intentionally set to alter votes. Multiple analyses revealed that even if one accepted that the majority of the mail-in ballots counted after the physical polls closed were for Biden, those ballots still were insufficient to elect him. Bizarre spikes, fake shutdowns of counting, and mathematically impossible increases in vote counts all pointed to Venezuelan voting machines doing for Trump what they'd done for Chávez and Maduro.

"Evidence other than the polls also predicted with virtually 100% certainty that Trump would win. Trump massively increased his support with minorities, while Biden lost black support in the Rust Belt, Trump won the all-important cookie votes, Trump had extraordinarily long coattails while Biden had none, and Trump's voter enthusiasm was through the roof.

"Another giveaway was that Democrats only pretended to campaign. Biden hid in the basement and wouldn't talk to the media — and Kamala hid, too. They knew that the fix was in, so why bother? Fox News gave the game away when it insisted that Arizona was a Biden state long before there were sufficient data to make that call.

"Despite this evidence, the courts have been craven. While leftists crow that Trump and his allies keep losing in court, Trump-supporters have noticed that the courts have consistently refused to look at the evidence. So far, the Supreme Court has been just as bad.

"And that gets us to Maria Bartiromo's Tuesday-morning bombshell. According to Bartiromo, an intel source reports that the Supreme Court is the only thing that can stop the fraud:


"Maria Bartiromo: 'An intel source told me President Trump did, in fact, win the election. He says that it is up to the Supreme Court to hear suits from other cases across the country to stop the clock. This follows the high court's refusal to hear the lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.'"

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

[Walker]

Yes, that's an opinion piece.

However, if you track down the assertions you will find that they are factual.
And if you habitually follow events, you remember the past, and what actually happened.

Nice summary to date, although the ending is a bit mysterious.

Apparently there are still ways to present to the Supreme Court, but in practice this is largely frontier territory, thus ripe for endless wrangling, 'specially by folks who for reasons of power, declare that the Constitution is a relativistic constitution, subject to change caused by transitory situations, such as the times in which we live.

Legislation is strongest. Then, judicial opinion (in modern times). Then, Presidential decree.
But, these times are different.
Regulation rules.

The tactic of the revolutionary, whether it be a silent or bloody coop, is to destroy what exists and build on the ashes.

The Supreme Court figures that the Democrats will take the Georgia senate runoff, thereby eliminating the need for future adjudication by them, which would be caused by the Dems radical plans of change if they didn't have the presidency and the whole Congress. The Supremes can go back to flying under the radar, and the Congress would be too busy to pack the court.

However, Obama taught that a lot could be railroaded in two years, so the Dems might have room on their plate to make the Supreme Court irrelevant by numbers.

[henry quirk]

Not surprised, only appalled.

a repub suggests martial law to, in his view, preserve a presidency

dems, in effect, declare martial law to, in their view, blunt a virus

which is more appalling?

One is in the name of saving lives, the other is in the name of political greed.

how is it the repub, who would use *martial law to preserve the presidency, is greedy? in the context of challenged elections and perceived threats to the republic, greed doesn't seem to be an accurate assessment

and: c.s. lewis had sumthin' to say about those who'd save our lives...

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.









*not in favor of it myself

[Gary Childress]

Fine. Let's just have 4 more years of Trump. I could care less. Neither of the two main candidates in the 2020 election is worth a shit. Covid is a hoax, Trump really won the election and declaring martial law would be "preserving the presidency". Anything else is "fake news".

[tillingborn]

It strikes me as odd that you apparently think that journalism should be subject to more stringent requirements than the justice department.

I said absolutely nothing at all about what requirements pertain to the justice department. Nothing. Again, say what I said, not what I did not.

So that there is no misunderstanding, this is the exchange I was referring to:

"A Justice Department policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts, which is why investigators did not reach out to the younger Biden prior to the election."

You should recognize this as a red herring. A mere "policy" is not a legal requirement. Moreover, it pertained only to the Justice Department itself, not to any news reporters. So when the Biden laptop appeared in the hands of the store owner, just prior to the election, the news media were all perfectly free to report on it. A few did, but most denied the story even existed, and those that admitted it did said it amounted to nothing -- the opposite of what they're saying now.

Given the trajectory our conversation has taken, it seems to me that you think something more than 'a mere policy' ought to apply to journalism.

Would it be unobjective to point out that the Biden investigation is ongoing, and that no one has yet been convicted.

It would be irrelevant, at the moment. The MSM is now reporting the investigation, not the conviction.

The MSM didn't report the laptop; now they are. The MSM said that there was nothing to seen Hunter Biden's business dealings; now they are reporting five investigations. They didn't report anything on the Bobulinski testimony; now they are.

Why didn't they report any of that before the election?

I don't know, nor would I presume to judge. It may be, as I understand you to imply, that not being legally obliged to, some news outlets chose not to for partisan reasons. Then again, perhaps some news outlets chose to respect the Justice Department policy.

[Immanuel Can]

So that there is no misunderstanding, this is the exchange I was referring to:

"A Justice Department policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts, which is why investigators did not reach out to the younger Biden prior to the election."

You should recognize this as a red herring. A mere "policy" is not a legal requirement. Moreover, it pertained only to the Justice Department itself, not to any news reporters. So when the Biden laptop appeared in the hands of the store owner, just prior to the election, the news media were all perfectly free to report on it. A few did, but most denied the story even existed, and those that admitted it did said it amounted to nothing -- the opposite of what they're saying now.

I know. But read carefully.

I said only that what the Justice Department was using as its excuse was not relevant to the journalist anyway. It would never serve as a similar excuse for journalistic negligence, in other words.

I did not say or imply I wanted to talk about the Justice Department, or had a particular view of its conduct. (I do, but I was not referring to it at all there.) I will reserve my criticism at the moment for the journalists, which were the topic in hand.

Given the trajectory our conversation has taken, it seems to me that you think something more than 'a mere policy' ought to apply to journalism.

I did not say this, either. However, I think a code of ethics is in order for journalism, but that's not unusual; teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and a host of other professions also have codes of professional ethics by which we can evaluate the quality and professional integrity of their work. Journalists had some such codes in past, as I have pointed out; but they don't seem to have any loyalty to such things now, and thus stand condemned by their own professional standards, if not also by the general standards of all human beings -- namely, that it is immoral to present oneself as a truth-teller, and then lie or omit the truth.

So whether by professional ethical code, or by the moral standards of basic human decency, the so-called "journalists" who hid the Biden scandal (and who now report it) are unethical/immoral. And they're certainly two-faced.

Why didn't they report any of that before the election?

I don't know, nor would I presume to judge.[/quote]
You should.

Because if you think about it, you'll realize that you're exactly typical of the one they're trying to fool, and earlier, you were the one who said that being merely skeptical will protect us against all the manipulations of an unethical press.

So how's that working for you right now?

[tillingborn]

Because if you think about it, you'll realize that you're exactly typical of the one they're trying to fool, and earlier, you were the one who said that being merely skeptical will protect us against all the manipulations of an unethical press.

So how's that working for you right now?

Clearly you have taken umbrage. I apologise for any upset I have caused, but I think you should consider the wisdom of airing views you do not wish to be challenged.

[Immanuel Can]

Because if you think about it, you'll realize that you're exactly typical of the one they're trying to fool, and earlier, you were the one who said that being merely skeptical will protect us against all the manipulations of an unethical press.

So how's that working for you right now?

Clearly you have taken umbrage.

Not at all, actually. I'm fine. (This is the problem with email...no tone is evident. But here's mine: Neutral, see?)

I'm not insulting you: I'm pointing out to you that people like you are the audience the MSM is hoping to control by suppressing the truth they now admit. I'm asking you to reflect on what they did to you.

The question is also sincere: what protection does skepticism give you in cases in which information is simply withheld from you, so that you don't know it exists?

And that's an important question right now: because we know now about the laptop. We know about Hunter Biden. We know Joe Biden has some very sinister connections with his son's activities. And all this stuff was known before the election, but was withheld from you by the MSM...was it not? Because they're reporting it now. And from what you've said, I have to assume you had no idea about it prior to the election.

That being so, how did skepticism help you to get the information you lacked?

[tillingborn]

The question is also sincere: what protection does skepticism give you in cases in which information is simply withheld from you, so that you don't know it exists?

Skepticism is no more a protection against what journalists do not tell us than is a wish that journalists would abide by some reputed standard of decency.

And that's an important question right now: because we know now about the laptop. We know about Hunter Biden. We know Joe Biden has some very sinister connections with his son's activities. And all this stuff was known before the election, but was withheld from you by the MSM...was it not? Because they're reporting it now. And from what you've said, I have to assume you had no idea about it prior to the election.

That being so, how did skepticism help you to get the information you lacked?

Not in the least; skepticism is however some protection against what journalists do tell us. It is also useful when applied to our own assumptions: I think one would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the allegations against Hunter Biden.

I'm not insulting you: I'm pointing out to you that people like you are the audience the MSM is hoping to control by suppressing the truth they now admit. I'm asking you to reflect on what they did to you.

As you mean no insult by the above, I take it you would not be insulted if I suggested that people like you are the audience the media you listen to is hoping to control. You might reflect on the fact that Hunter has not as yet been found guilty of any charge. The same networks that quite legitimately defended Donald Trump against the allegations he has faced are the same one's broadcasting the Biden allegations in such a way that you feel you "know Joe Biden has some very sinister connections with his son's activities". If Trump deserved his day in court, doesn't Biden. And if there is a code of conduct to be written, do you not think there is a place for consistency on it?

[Immanuel Can]

The question is also sincere: what protection does skepticism give you in cases in which information is simply withheld from you, so that you don't know it exists?

Skepticism is no more a protection against what journalists do not tell us than is a wish that journalists would abide by some reputed standard of decency.

Red herring. There's nothing skepticism can do against the with journalists that withhold information, but there's definitely things we can do with journalists that don't abide by their professional ethics. For one thing, we can deny them the dignity of being regarded as "journalists," and identify them for what they are: partisan hacks, purveyors of lies and propagandists. We do have suitable categories for such rogues. For another, we can completely disregard the whole industry, if they refuse to provide us with the minimal standards of honesty and transparency that we, the public, expect from them. We need not silence them or deny them the right to speak: but we can make them earn our trust by being reliable on a regular basis, and by condemning their failures to be that.

CNN should be out of journalism, by its own account. For when you start to report what you earlier denied was news, you're either a liar or incompetent as a journalist. Either way, you've no deserved credibility left.

That being so, how did skepticism help you to get the information you lacked?

Not in the least...

Absolutely right. It didn't protect you at all. So we need more than mere skepticism: we need to have standards of transparency, so news reporters are obligated to share what they know. Then, and only then, will our skepticism prove useful.

I think one would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the allegations against Hunter Biden.

Yes, they knew. But they deliberately pretended it didn't exist, or wasn't an issue. They didn't care which you believed, but they knew full well both were lies.

You might reflect on the fact that Hunter has not as yet been found guilty of any charge.

He was drummed out of the military for drug use, and I have seen some of the images of HB smoking crack. You can see them too, online. Google it. His Burisma deal is clearly fraudulent: nobody ever pretends he expertise to justify that position and salary. And Joe Biden has bragged about his cutting off the investigation of his son by interfering with the investigation; you can see him do it on camera, just like you can see he's senile, that he makes racist remarks, and see that he acts inappropriately toward females. These are not matters of question: they're obvious to any fair observer, and all openly online for your viewing pleasure...if you want to know. But you can always avoid them if you don't.

If Trump deserved his day in court, doesn't Biden.

Absolutely. But the things I listen above are matters of public record, unlike the phony Trump-Russia-collusion allegations, now proved false. I don't know what Trump's guilty of; but the court says it isn't that. And I hope Biden WILL get his day in court, and that the court will have ethics, and will give him everything the evidence says he deserves.

That's fair enough, isn't it?

[tillingborn]

The question is also sincere: what protection does skepticism give you in cases in which information is simply withheld from you, so that you don't know it exists?

Skepticism is no more a protection against what journalists do not tell us than is a wish that journalists would abide by some reputed standard of decency.

Red herring. There's nothing skepticism can do against the with journalists that withhold information, but there's definitely things we can do with journalists that don't abide by their professional ethics. For one thing, we can deny them the dignity of being regarded as "journalists," and identify them for what they are: partisan hacks, purveyors of lies and propagandists. We do have suitable categories for such rogues. For another, we can completely disregard the whole industry, if they refuse to provide us with the minimal standards of honesty and transparency that we, the public, expect from them. We need not silence them or deny them the right to speak: but we can make them earn our trust by being reliable on a regular basis, and by condemning their failures to be that.

I don't think name calling will bring 'journalists' to heel. Nor do I think "the public" will ever agree on which journalists are honest and transparent. How much common ground do you think is shared by Antifa and Qanon? To politicians, no matter how lunatic the fringe, sympathisers are still voters and the breadth of margin will influence the candidate's attitude.

CNN should be out of journalism, by its own account. For when you start to report what you earlier denied was news, you're either a liar or incompetent as a journalist. Either way, you've no deserved credibility left.

Or they were respecting the policy of the Justice Department.

That being so, how did skepticism help you to get the information you lacked?

Not in the least...

Absolutely right. It didn't protect you at all. So we need more than mere skepticism: we need to have standards of transparency, so news reporters are obligated to share what they know. Then, and only then, will our skepticism prove useful.

You have picked the low hanging fruit here, editing in such a way to best make your point. This is simply what journalists do and I do not think they should be obliged to make other journalists' points for them; that is what the other journalists are for.

I think one would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the allegations against Hunter Biden.

Yes, they knew. But they deliberately pretended it didn't exist, or wasn't an issue. They didn't care which you believed, but they knew full well both were lies.

My point was that I knew about the allegations. I am perfectly able to change channels.

You might reflect on the fact that Hunter has not as yet been found guilty of any charge.

He was drummed out of the military for drug use, and I have seen some of the images of HB smoking crack. You can see them too, online. Google it. His Burisma deal is clearly fraudulent: nobody ever pretends he expertise to justify that position and salary. And Joe Biden has bragged about his cutting off the investigation of his son by interfering with the investigation; you can see him do it on camera, just like you can see he's senile, that he makes racist remarks, and see that he acts inappropriately toward females. These are not matters of question: they're obvious to any fair observer, and all openly online for your viewing pleasure...if you want to know. But you can always avoid them if you don't.

Are you sure this isn't upsetting you? Why do you think the personal slights are necessary? Far from avoiding your claims, I looked into them. I have no need to see Hunter Biden smoking crack, it is quite enough that the US Navy saw fit to discharge him, but unless Joe Biden was the supplier, I don't see why his son's struggle with addiction should disqualify Biden senior from office.
Whether Hunter Biden's Burisma deal was fraudulent is precisely the sort of thing that should be decided by the courts.
You will have to provide a link to Joe Biden bragging. I do know that Joe Biden was one of several leaders of western countries and organisations that give financial support to Ukraine that pushed for the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin.
I am not qualified to diagnose senility, certainly I have seen him stumble over his words and struggle with pointed questions, but any fair observer could say the same of Donald Trump. These are two gentlemen in their seventies, I didn't think it was necessary for Biden to jog onto stage, as he recently did, nor do I think that Donald Trump taking care on a ramp should be criticised.
I googled 'Biden being racist'. The most damning thing I found was this:
"In May, a story on the website Team Trump USA claimed that in "1977: Biden Said Integrating Black Students Would Turn Schools into ‘A Jungle… A Racial Jungle." It also contained a photo that showed Biden alongside the purported quote, "I don't want my children to grow up in a jungle, a racial jungle." "
Doing the same for Donald Trump produced rather more, starting with this:
"1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination."
The rest of the allegations are too numerous to list, but a fair observer would note that Donald Trump when asked, claims to be the least racist person in the room.
Googling 'Biden acting inappropriately towards women' revealed this:
"Eight women have alleged that Biden either touched them inappropriately or violated their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable."
By contrast, substituting Biden for Trump brings this:
"A full 26 incidents of “unwanted sexual contact” and 43 instances of inappropriate behaviour were detailed in a book, All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator, which drew on over 100 interviews — many exclusive — and added to a list of nearly two dozen women who had previously accused him of sexual assault or misconduct."
Any fair observer would observe that while there is a disparity in the severity and number of accusations, as yet neither man has been convicted of any such crime.

If Trump deserved his day in court, doesn't Biden.

Absolutely. But the things I listen above are matters of public record, unlike the phony Trump-Russia-collusion allegations, now proved false. I don't know what Trump's guilty of; but the court says it isn't that. And I hope Biden WILL get his day in court, and that the court will have ethics, and will give him everything the evidence says he deserves.

That's fair enough, isn't it?

If charges are brought against either gentleman, it would be fair enough that they are given the opportunity to defend themselves.

[Nick_A]

Does journalism as described by the Constitution exist in the United states? Does it serve its purpose by providing what is necessary for free speech to benefit freedom?

Article One of the Constitution:

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.

The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media. They are described in detail below

1. Seek Truth and Report It

2. Minimize Harm

3. Act Independently

4. Be Accountable and Transparent

Is the NY Times or CNN for example, a vehicle for ethical journalism; a quality essential to sustain liberty, or have they become tools of propaganda designed to eliminate freedom in favor of their agenda?

I would say that ethical journalism and its essential purpose to promote freedom of expression no longer exists

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think name calling will bring 'journalists' to heel.

I didn't suggest name calling. I was suggesting that we DON'T call, or regard them as journalists when they're behaving unethically. That's all.

How much common ground do you think is shared by Antifa and Qanon?

You just made the necessary distinction: you listed two entities you consider not reliable, and excluded them from serious consideration as information sources. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

To politicians, no matter how lunatic the fringe, sympathisers are still voters and the breadth of margin will influence the candidate's attitude.

Apparently not. In this last election, voter opinion was astoundingly unimportant. Politicians found the means, by colluding with certain interest groups in the media, technology and the political process, to circumvent the public will entirely. Such thing have been tried before, and succeeded in smaller elections; this seems to be the first time they managed to grab "the big one."

CNN should be out of journalism, by its own account. For when you start to report what you earlier denied was news, you're either a liar or incompetent as a journalist. Either way, you've no deserved credibility left.

Or they were respecting the policy of the Justice Department.

Not their job. They are not the Justice Department, and had absolutely no legal or moral responsibility to do respect a mere "policy" from political operatives. In fact, their job as journalists is to report to us all the important information they can find. And they clearly knew this was important to the public; that's why they're reporting it now.

Not in the least...

Absolutely right. It didn't protect you at all. So we need more than mere skepticism: we need to have standards of transparency, so news reporters are obligated to share what they know. Then, and only then, will our skepticism prove useful.

This is simply what journalists do and I do not think they should be obliged to make other journalists' points for them; that is what the other journalists are for.[/quote]
You've red herringed your response here. The point is not that "journalists should make other journalists' points." I said no such thing. What I pointed out was that your vaunted "skepticism" was not functional in a situation in which you were denied essential information in the first place. Skepticism is useless unless it has information upon which to practice skeptical reflection.

But I think you do see the point.

I think one would have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the allegations against Hunter Biden.

Yes, they knew. But they deliberately pretended it didn't exist, or wasn't an issue. They didn't care which you believed, but they knew full well both were lies.

My point was that I knew about the allegations. I am perfectly able to change channels.

Not the point, again. They were lying to you, and knew they were. They knew the laptop existed. They knew it was Hunter Biden's. They knew it contained damning pictures and data that would cast reasonable doubt on his father. All that, they knew for sure.

They told you it was nothing. You believed them. Now they are showing they knew darn well it wasn't nothing. That's dishonest journalism -- and, if skepticism is the public defence, questionable skepticism.

Are you sure this isn't upsetting you?

Yep. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion, but as a replay, not in real time.

Why do you think the personal slights are necessary?

There were no personal slights in my list. There were only verified facts, which you yourself could find out.

Far from avoiding your claims, I looked into them. I have no need to see Hunter Biden smoking crack, it is quite enough that the US Navy saw fit to discharge him, but unless Joe Biden was the supplier, I don't see why his son's struggle with addiction should disqualify Biden senior from office.

Heh. So much for your vaunted skepticism. A drug-addled son is put into a million-dollar-a-year job on the board of a company who does something in which he has no expertise, and his father is a major politician with an angle on the White House, and you don't see anything? Biden Sr. brags in public about getting the prosecutor going after his son fired, and you see nothing. Tapes of Biden forgetting everything down to his own shoe size are everywhere, and you see nothing. Pictures of Biden groping women are everywhere: #nothingtoseehere. You went looking for Biden's racism, and couldn't find him telling black people that if they didn't vote for him "you ain't black," and you couldn't find him saying that "poor kids are just as bright as white kids," or any of the other myriad times he said stupid and insensitive things about black folks. There are election stats that would imply Biden's more popular than Obama, and won by breaking several statistical records that have never, in history been broken, and you can't add up the data. There are security videos of the election being stolen, where you can watch it in real time, and you see nothing.

Okay. How's your skepticism working for you now?

If charges are brought against either gentleman, it would be fair enough that they are given the opportunity to defend themselves.

Of course. But you should also realize that the standard "not yet a convicted felon" is too low for the President of the United States. If you don't know that, then you'd sure vote for a lot of people who are still not good candidates.

[tillingborn]

I don't think name calling will bring 'journalists' to heel.

I didn't suggest name calling. I was suggesting that we DON'T call, or regard them as journalists when they're behaving unethically. That's all.

I don't think that's true:

For one thing, we can deny them the dignity of being regarded as "journalists," and identify them for what they are: partisan hacks, purveyors of lies and propagandists. We do have suitable categories for such rogues.

What are we to call those categories and the members of them? It seems to me that describing that as name calling is a reasonable, and the sort of description a journalist might use.

How much common ground do you think is shared by Antifa and Qanon?

You just made the necessary distinction: you listed two entities you consider not reliable, and excluded them from serious consideration as information sources. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I don't think that is true either. That you assume I think those entities are unreliable and not worthy of serious consideration is the spin you have put on it; precisely as a journalist might.
From everything you have said so far, I think I can safely conclude that your actual complaint is not that journalists don't tell the truth, it is that they don't tell your truth. Skepticism is most effective if you spread it evenly. Yours is very lumpy, which is your prerogative, but I really don't think any neutral needs take your attack on journalists too seriously.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that describing that as name calling is a reasonable, and the sort of description a journalist might use.

"Name calling" is what you're doing when the label isn't warranted. "Identifying accurately" is what you are doing when the label is fully justified by the facts.

How much common ground do you think is shared by Antifa and Qanon?

You just made the necessary distinction: you listed two entities you consider not reliable, and excluded them from serious consideration as information sources. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I don't think that is true either. That you assume I think those entities are unreliable and not worthy of serious consideration is the spin you have put on it.

Oh? So you regard Antifa and Q-whatever as reliable sources? It was just "spin" on your part when you implied they're not?

From everything you have said so far, I think I can safely conclude that your actual complaint is not that journalists don't tell the truth, it is that they don't tell your truth.

Heh. That's hilarious.

So the Biden laptop is just "my truth," even though your side, like CNN, is now reporting it all.

Whatever else we can both safely say, CNN lied. You know it, because they've reveresed THEMSELVES. When a purported source can't even keep his own story straight, and reverses itself, you've caught them red handed.

But I perceive there is nothing which can happen which will convince you. So what's next?