The fact checker site give clear irrefutable examples. And it's not the only fact checking site to do that. Same for Oann. Don't mix facts and belief
I think we will find out that America's self-proclaimed election security is second to none. No bid contractor, with the EULA 100 miles long.
Consider this: We all like to read/hear things that reinforce our world view. Otherwise we spit out our cornflakes. We don’t like to be challenged. Look how many line up to condemn Trump or trash Daily Mail readers and political opposites as morally deficient. Anyone for Snowflakes? Consequently we also pick our media to match our own biases; we all have them in varying degree and to deny it is mere self deception. In exactly the same way we tend go with fact checkers that do the self same thing. We like the comfort blanket. The explosion in channels has made it harder to make money from traditional media. An unintended consequence has been that reporting and analysis have been displaced by a rise in opinion journalism (I.e. less than truly journalistic) born out of a need to hang onto your customers. Most media are far more subjective than they will ever admit. They promulgate ‘their’ truth to the already converted. It doesn’t leave much middle ground for an exchange of ideas where anyone is listening.
And very little money for investigative journalism, which was a bedrock for keeping our ruling classes honest That said, very seldom is there any action taken, when Private Eye discloses nepotism or corruption, suing aside.
I read all media, and the ones on my opposite view. So far they are credible. The opposite view gives another angle to things, but rarely/never different basic facts. That's where I disagree. Then all rubbish from standalone thinker should be considered credible? certainly not. The structure, environment makes an average control on credibility. I like to read the "Figaro" (right wing) because the journalism is high quality, even if I'm more leaning with "Liberation". Just different angles, none of them would pretend Obama was born in Africa for example.
There’s a reason political talking heads are making huge $$$ they are good at creating emotional reactions which mean more and more loyal listeners.
None of this is particularly new and those of us who already know how to think with a degree of clarity and objectivity may find you erring towards condescension, which I'm sure you don't intend. Your view is, as always, well made but it leaves little room for those who recognise bias already and strive to avoid falling in to the trap you describe. You have effectively preached your gospel while simultaneously marginalising those who would agree.
Given Cal’s certainty (nay, glee) about the impending intervention of SCOTUS in the election I decided to have a look at the papers filed with SCOTUS by Texas. At 154 pages they take some reading, though they are a tad repetitive. There is nothing particularly new or sensational in there, mostly the rehashed, anecdotal conspiracy nonsense already widely promulgated, including on here, and in most cases easily discredited There is one rather amusing claim, thus: The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). Notwithstanding the frivolity, however, there is actually the bones of a case to be made. The essence of the case is that the various administrative changes made over time by each of the four states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania) to make it possible for millions of voters to vote by post (“absentee ballots”) were unconstitutional to the extent that the changes were made without express approval of each state’s legislature (I guess that means the state senate). Because (so the argument goes) these postal votes were unlawful and invalid, the State of Texas would suffer damage if the four states were to appoint electors to the electoral college on the back of these absentee ballots. So several issues of import. - Firstly were the various changes to process unconstitutional? - Secondly would the State of Texas suffer damage if the four states were to appoint electors to the electoral college on the back of these absentee ballots? - Thirdly if so what to do about it? It appears that the four states have to respond to the various claims made (which will be about their process changes) tomorrow.
Well said Cal! As you say, you like to read/hear things that reinforce your world view, (namely that you are the smartest person around). Look how some on here line up to condemn followers of the BBC, or Times readers and political opposites as testosterone or brain cell deficient Snowflakes. Be careful with those cornflakes now..
Apart from the sheer nonsense of this suit the Safe Harbour Law makes it all moot. George Conway rips it apart.
I hope you are right Rich, but this powerful argument from George Conway was before SCOTUS agreed to hear the Texas case, which does argue that SCOTUS can overrule Safe Harbour. We shall see.
I can't see this going anywhere, not least because SCOTUS will be aware of the absolute carnage that would result from anything other than a complete rebuttal of the case. Desperate measures.
Yes but this would be a minefield for them to uphold. Although the claims mention fraud in a smokescreen sort of way (so they can claim fraud on Cal’s Conspiracy TV channels) they present no evidence of it and I would bet that in front of SCOTUS the Texas lawyers carefully state that this is NOT a fraud case again, as with all of the “Trumped-up” cases so far. They will argue that this is about the legality of the processes adopted in the four states, in other words that it is a technical (but important constitutional) issue. The fours states will be arguing today that their electoral processes WERE valid and properly performed, which is why they have now certified their results. SCOTUS will then have to decide whether it is right to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters who did exactly as instructed by their (Republican) election officials because other Republican officials in other states don’t like that they voted Democrat. Can you imagine the uproar if that is what actually happens? If it was the other way round and it was the Democrats attempting to disenfranchise gun-toting crazies there would be a civil war. And SCOTUS knows how serious this would be.
As conservative judges their default will be the Constitution not the President that nominated them on advice. However, potentially much more significant than the 17 odd States aligned with Texas is the appearance of Arizona and Georgia legislatures bypassing their obstructing Governors and Electoral officials.
So Shirley your telling me these motions where filled before the election by well meaning citizens. I would hate to think this was a last minute attempt by axe wielding bad loser fascists, to break down the last lawful door between them and a coupe?