GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden

Status
Not open for further replies.
nsacpi said:
[tw]1341122230026178561[/tw]

In coming weeks and months I wouldn't be surprised to see various religious leaders who were once quite enthusiastic about very poorly chosen one start to put some distance between themselves and him.
Click to expand...

Didn’t he receive a prophecy that Trump would be re-elected?
 

Newsmax And Pro-Trump Media Walk Back Voting Conspiracies After Legal Threat
Smartmatic, a voting systems company, has threatened multiple outlets with defamation suits.


Newsmax’s attempt to “clarify” its misinformation, which has the tone of a rote legal statement, was delivered after Smartmatic issued a series of legal threats to far-right media outlets last week demanding retractions and suggesting it could pursue defamation lawsuits. Thus far, Fox Business, Fox News and Newsmax have aired segments that appear intended to defend themselves against such legal action.

On Friday, top-rated Fox Business host Lou Dobbs ran a pretaped segment with election security expert Eddie Perez debunking various claims related to Smartmatic and Dominion. Fox News host Jeanine Pirro’s show aired the same clip on Saturday, featuring Perez stating he has seen no evidence of any election fraud related to Smartmatic.

After the clips aired, Perez told CNN that in preliminary talks with Fox he had no idea that he would be asked about Smartmatic or that his interview would serve as a fact check for the network. Perez also called Fox News’ coverage of the election “not based in fact.”

The clarifications on Newsmax and Fox are an abrupt turnaround after weeks of promoting conspiracies related to the integrity of the election as far-right media sought to suggest the election was never decided and that Trump could still win. To preserve this delusion, many outlets grasped for convoluted conspiracy theories to present the falsehood that there was widespread election fraud ― often with the help of Trump advisers as guests. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, appeared on multiple Fox shows to air conspiracies about Dominion and Smartmatic following the vote.
 
zbhargrove said:
The problem is that those are the regular sources for Trump’s hardcore loyal base. So outright lies from them can be extremely dangerous if put under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...

I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to the punch.

The amount of lies that come from these “news sources” are unbelievable. They are conspiracy after conspiracy, completely void of facts. And the bigger problem is, the majority of Trump’s base listens to these “news sources” as if they were at church on Sunday morning. Trump received how many votes? 70+ million? What percentage of those people listen to what he says and what these “news sources” say? That’s my point. These places are doing a lot more harm than the CNNs and MSNBCs of the word.
 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Officials finally found a case of a dead person voting, accusing a Republican of pretending to be his dead mom to vote for Trump

Officials have found a case of a dead person voting.

Bruce Bartman has been charged with unlawful voting and perjury over allegations that he pretended to be his dead mother to cast a ballot in the November election for President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.

Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer announced the charges in a press release Monday. Bartman was arraigned Friday and released on $100,000 bail, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. If convicted on all charges, the 70-year-old Bartman could spend up to 19 years in prison.
 
The Chosen One said:
5JyEnmL.png
Click to expand...

horrorshed.png


Feed me Seymour!
 
nsacpi said:
you misunderstand his schtick...his game is to lump the NY Times, WaPo and all the reputable outfits into the same bin as Fox, OAN, Newsmax and RT...he's happy to stipulate that Newsmax sucks

as a corollary to the above...if all sources of information are equally suspect we have all this freedom...to believe the facts to be what we want them to be...so the fb moniker is apt indeed
Click to expand...

If by "his schtick," you mean start a long running thread that repeatedly provides evidence of the extreme leftward bias of those networks, then you make a good point. But you're so often a parody poster these days that I can't tell if this was one of them or not.
 
Jaw said:
If by "his schtick," you mean start a long running thread that repeatedly provides evidence of the extreme leftward bias of those networks, then you make a good point. But you're so often a parody poster these days that I can't tell if this was one of them or not.
Click to expand...

i once asked him what news organizations he considered unbiased...and he recommended RT...so yeah i think schtick is being charitable
 
nsacpi said:
i once asked him what news organizations he considered unbiased...and he recommended RT...so yeah i think schtick is being charitable
Click to expand...

That was a bad answer to a silly question. You should have just asked him how he travels faster than the speed of light, there's no correct answer to either. The biggest problem we have now is seemingly every media outlet is intentionally becoming more partisan.
The NYT has gone from semi reputable to complete hacks in a year, and done it on purpose, giving intersectionality chiefs veto rights on what gets published. CNN proved for the last four years that news channels no longer need to provide news and went strictly biased commentary. Politico just hired Sam Stein as their White House editor. The New England Journal of Medicine is publishing woke nonsense and endorsing politicians. Social media companies are censoring accurate news stories that could damage one side of the aisle or even mention factual events related to election fraud lawsuits.
I don't recall you looking down with disdain at any of those occurrences, but you're there to remind us all that there are two or three outlets biased in the other direction. It's the dissenting voices who are the real danger, after all.
 
Jaw said:
That was a bad answer to a silly question. You should have just asked him how he travels faster than the speed of light, there's no correct answer to either. The biggest problem we have now is seemingly every media outlet is intentionally becoming more partisan.
The NYT has gone from semi reputable to complete hacks in a year, and done it on purpose, giving intersectionality chiefs veto rights on what gets published. CNN proved for the last four years that news channels no longer need to provide news and went strictly biased commentary. Politico just hired Sam Stein as their White House editor. The New England Journal of Medicine is publishing woke nonsense and endorsing politicians. Social media companies are censoring accurate news stories that could damage one side of the aisle or even mention factual events related to election fraud lawsuits.
I don't recall you looking down with disdain at any of those occurrences, but you're there to remind us all that there are two or three outlets biased in the other direction. It's the dissenting voices who are the real danger, after all.
Click to expand...

I've always been a big fan of the Christian Science Monitor. They cover the news in an exceedingly fair way. And often cover stories that are neglected but deserve more coverage.

I think most of the reporters at the Times and Post cover the news in a fairly straightforward way, with no indication of their political leanings. It is actually possible to have political opinions, and not let that enter into the work you do. Applies to reporters, FBI agents, police, judges, etc, etc. Of course, there are exceptions. And when they happen then the people who have those lapses deserve to be jumped on and suffer loss of professional reputation.

I jumped on the Times for the way they mishandled the Cotton op-ed piece and its aftermath (and posted several times about it). But that's a slightly different thing given it is an op-ed issue. In general, I don't think newspapers should have editorial pages, but I'm not holding my breath on anyone coming around to that view any time soon.
 
Last edited:
tululush said:
As scary as this is, it’s not the least bit surprising.
Click to expand...

the only thing saving us is the sheer incompetence of the cast of misfits trying to pull this off...and I hate to say this but Bill Barr has helped to save the Republic...he is much more cunning and competent and it would have been a much more serious threat if someone like him was part of the effort
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
the only thing saving us is the sheer incompetence of the cast of misfits trying to pull this off...and I hate to say this but Bill Barr has helped to save the Republic...he is much more cunning and competent and it would have been a much more serious threat if someone like him was part of the effort
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why I asked how many more reputable and influential Republicans would it take to reach critical mass. Not so many. Barr and Mitch would sway many more.

There are nameless for now people who I'm sure quietly stepped up to stop the Trump coup. Can't wait for the book/movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top