United States Corrupt Twattery

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,913
I mean ffs. On the one hand he's talking about "protecting the right to vote" while on the other he did everything he could to cripple the postal service to literally stop people from being able to cast entirely legal votes. Republicans have openly admitted that letting more people vote is bad for them.

Edit - the first Google result I can be arsed to find. Voter suppression (the literal opposite of "protecting the right to vote") is part of the GOP playbook.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
Why should any reputable outlet want to "carry" that?
I think if the elected leader of the free world takes the time to do a 45 minute speech with such amazing accusations then the media should be reporting it.

Their job is not to decide what is true, their job is to report the news - and the accusations of the most powerful man on the planet are news.

Then they can report on how it's going through the courts. And the outcome of that.

But I think they must report it.
 

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,913
It's the desperate ramblings of a defeated man but tbh they are covering it:


His legal team have been laughed out of every court they've been in, they still haven't provided evidence, everywhere there has been a recount, Biden has actually gained votes. At some point airing his baseless allegations becomes dangerous in an already highly-divided country.
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,401
Sometimes it's just easier to allow them to have their little tantrum and wear themselves out.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,918
I think if the elected leader of the free world takes the time to do a 45 minute speech with such amazing accusations then the media should be reporting it.

Their job is not to decide what is true, their job is to report the news - and the accusations of the most powerful man on the planet are news.

Then they can report on how it's going through the courts. And the outcome of that.

But I think they must report it.
Nah. The 'news' bit could be covered by just mentioning that the President made another series of unfounded allegations and then providing a few examples of why they are untrue. That would be actual news. No need to air the whole thing. That's a free political advert.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,048
I think if the elected leader of the free world takes the time to do a 45 minute speech with such amazing accusations then the media should be reporting it.

Their job is not to decide what is true, their job is to report the news - and the accusations of the most powerful man on the planet are news.

Then they can report on how it's going through the courts. And the outcome of that.

But I think they must report it.
I think we're at "old man waves fist at clouds" at this point. He keeps repeating stuff that's wholly unsubstantiated. While the media still needs to report that he's still doing it, there's very little point in reporting on the content unless anything changes.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
I think we're at "old man waves fist at clouds" at this point. He keeps repeating stuff that's wholly unsubstantiated.
Whilst I largely agree I've seen the recounts point on signature checking multiple times and never seen a response to that.

They're recounting, sure, but the argument is that if they aren't verifying signatures how are you able to detect the fraud he's making the accusations about?

Recount, check signatures, fuck Trump off with evidence seems to me to be the way to do this - otherwise the sizeable proportion of the population that voted for him will always carry that doubt.
 

dysfunction

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,153
Whilst I largely agree I've seen the recounts point on signature checking multiple times and never seen a response to that.

They're recounting, sure, but the argument is that if they aren't verifying signatures how are you able to detect the fraud he's making the accusations about?

Recount, check signatures, fuck Trump off with evidence seems to me to be the way to do this - otherwise the sizeable proportion of the population that voted for him will always carry that doubt.
If the signatures was a big issue did that not get submitted to the courts to rule on?
If it has and been dismissed as rubbish then I think case closed and his little speeches are just a waste of time.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
If the signatures was a big issue did that not get submitted to the courts to rule on?
If it has and been dismissed as rubbish then I think case closed and his little speeches are just a waste of time.
I've no idea.

I also worry about that on a beauracratic point - courts rule on what's legal, they don't rule on what's right.

If the law states that a dumb blind count is sufficient then that's legal - and the case could get thrown out on that point alone - but on the ground, if all of the signatures state "donald duck*" then that's not right.



*Of course they won't but for illustrative purposes.

I don't know. But it occurs to me that that is an entirely feasible situation here. Likely? Probably not. But the only way to allay those fears is to do that analysis very publically and transparently independently.

But meh. For me, Biden / Trump = no qualitative difference.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,605
It is being reported more now but nearly always as unsubstantiated rubbish in the link headline.

So everyone laughs and writes him off, but this is the acting leader of the free world and they are basically telling half of America that their choice and with it their opinions are joke....because you know..impartiallity.
Trumps supporters blame the media for attacking him and them as racists for 4 years and now hes lost the same media are kicking them on the floor.
Obama led to Trump...Trump led to Biden and Biden will lead to supertrumpism.
Strange days but I guess Trump set himself up by taking on the absolute power of the press, things are in motion though, cracks are appearing in their monopoly.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
Until he ponies up proof @Job it IS unsubstantiated.



You know the #metoo thing? Where you hated that men's reputation could be trashed by allegation alone and you said "where's your evidence"?

#trumptoo...
 

Raven

Brrrrr!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
39,401
To job, evidence is some random loon spouting unsubstantiated shit on some fringe sub-reddit and we are all sheep for not believing it.

Ironically, because he is a sheep that believes anything he reads if it supports his fractured little mind gymnastics.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,048
Whilst I largely agree I've seen the recounts point on signature checking multiple times and never seen a response to that.

They're recounting, sure, but the argument is that if they aren't verifying signatures how are you able to detect the fraud he's making the accusations about?

Recount, check signatures, fuck Trump off with evidence seems to me to be the way to do this - otherwise the sizeable proportion of the population that voted for him will always carry that doubt.
Trump is making the accusations, so his team has the responsibility to provide evidence of their claims, and they haven't done that.

The signature thing is being touted because Trump knows full well that the ballots and envelopes they came in can't be reconciled (they're separated during the voting process for privacy reasons) ; the signature check can effectively only be done once. He thinks that's a method to muddy the waters which is why he's asking for a process (second signature check) that's physically impossible. But it doesn't matter because the signature verification process used in the first place is robust and uses multiple signature examples for each voter; the redundancy in verification confidence is done at that stage.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,918
Trump is making the accusations, so his team has the responsibility to provide evidence of their claims, and they haven't done that.

The signature thing is being touted because Trump knows full well that the ballots and envelopes they came in can't be reconciled (they're separated during the voting process for privacy reasons) ; the signature check can effectively only be done once. He thinks that's a method to muddy the waters which is why he's asking for a process (second signature check) that's physically impossible. But it doesn't matter because the signature verification process used in the first place is robust and uses multiple signature examples for each voter; the redundancy in verification confidence is done at that stage.
Yes, and these rules are set IN ADVANCE. They should have been challenged then not after the fact.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
The signature thing is being touted because Trump knows full well that the ballots and envelopes they came in can't be reconciled (they're separated during the voting process for privacy reasons) ; the signature check can effectively only be done once. He thinks that's a method to muddy the waters which is why he's asking for a process (second signature check) that's physically impossible. But it doesn't matter because the signature verification process used in the first place is robust and uses multiple signature examples for each voter; the redundancy in verification confidence is done at that stage.
Fair enough.

So why isn't this being reported widely by the media? Are we all too fucking dumb to understand? I've not seen this anywhere other than here, from you.

I'd prefer that the BBC or CNN or the Grauniad covered what he said - and provided links to this sort of material. It would address front-and-centre the concerns that some people (tin-foilers) have and provide this debunking information directly to people.

Instead, they're not widely covering anything with anything other than the word "unsubstantiated". And people who are mistrustful of the media (for lots of good reasons as well as bad ones IMO) would have a better source of information from more trustworthy sources than infowars.

For those of us who aren't completely tin-foil - I wouldn't be posting the above, because I'd have had that information.


Meanwhile, I'm trusting you - which tbh is better than the BBC as over the years I've got a picture of your intellect (and pedantry, which is a good thing) - but I should be able to access this debunking information easily from the media sources who are just saying "he's talking shit". :)
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,048
Fair enough.

So why isn't this being reported widely by the media? Are we all too fucking dumb to understand? I've not seen this anywhere other than here, from you.

I'd prefer that the BBC or CNN or the Grauniad covered what he said - and provided links to this sort of material. It would address front-and-centre the concerns that some people (tin-foilers) have and provide this debunking information directly to people.

Instead, they're not widely covering anything with anything other than the word "unsubstantiated". And people who are mistrustful of the media (for lots of good reasons as well as bad ones IMO) would have a better source of information from more trustworthy sources than infowars.

For those of us who aren't completely tin-foil - I wouldn't be posting the above, because I'd have had that information.


Meanwhile, I'm trusting you - which tbh is better than the BBC as over the years I've got a picture of your intellect (and pedantry, which is a good thing) - but I should be able to access this debunking information easily from the media sources who are just saying "he's talking shit". :)
I read it in the NYT. It was explained in a few places when the court cases were being submitted.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,605
Im aware that Trump is just muddying, but for the media thats a daily occurance, the subtle use of language is a powerful tool and swapping action with responsibility is an old trick.
Sticking it in the headline conveys a much stronger message than
Trump accusations.

If biden calls trump a racist they never print the headline as unsubstantiated claims.
Its a constant game of subtleties endlessly repeated till the entire story sticks and its so hard to fight back without joining in.

Humanity will never be at rest until we sort out the media, I see candice owens is suing facebooks fact checkers...good luck to her with that
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,918
Candace Owens is a grifter. Attention seeking is part of the plan.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,605
unsubstantiated claim
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
She makes a claim that the numbers are wildly off and then makes a claim that she signed a piece of paper if she's perjuring herself there.

That's a bold claim - and if true, that's something that should be listened to.

I hate her voice, but I don't think she's drunk. But even if she was a total lush and turned up to this thing wankered - if those claims aren't false, then that's something that should be taken seriously.


I guess we'll find out if she ever goes to prison, assuming that's even true :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,918
She makes a claim that the numbers are wildly off and then makes a claim that she signed a piece of paper if she's perjuring herself there.

That's a bold claim - and if true, that's something that should be listened to.

I hate her voice, but I don't think she's drunk. But even if she was a total lush and turned up to this thing wankered - if those claims aren't false, then that's something that should be taken seriously.


I guess we'll find out if she ever goes to prison, assuming that's even true :)
Claims are not evidence. Lots of these cases have been thrown out because they provided no evidence to back up the claims.
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
Claims are not evidence. Lots of these cases have been thrown out because they provided no evidence to back up the claims.
It wasn't even court that by the looks of it. Looked like a senatorial inquest.

Senator was a bit young. Young, rich people in positions of power eh? :(
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
14,918
It wasn't even court that by the looks of it. Looked like a senatorial inquest.

Senator was a bit young. Young, rich people in positions of power eh? :(
Courts or GTFO?
 

Scouse

Job-worshipper and all round follower of cunts.
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
28,903
Courts or GTFO?
Well, I guess that's why they have the senatorial reviews - as the court's focus are points of law, where politics is about the rights and wrongs.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom