US Politics Thread

[Dax777]

Which bits of the Russia collusion story have been proved wrong?

That Trump colluded with Russia and she has seen evidence of it that she was eventually going to tell us.

The connections between Trump administration hires and their Russian connection.

The promoting of the Steele Dossier. Her whole tenor for a good year an a half was conspiratorial. Everything was a clue, a link, a crumb of evidence of the deep collusion between The Trump Campaign and later Trump Presidency and Russian Infiltration.


In the end, experts being paid on the government's dime, delved deep into it, and concluded, Nah! Not there.

I bet many here still believe it though. The Russian Manchurian Candidate. Lol

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Russia Collusion and Trump being a puppet President is an obvious one.

Exaggeration and speculation not full on conspiracy theory. Members of the Trump team did meet with Russian officials and colluded with hackers and Trump had a bizarre attitude to foreign policy and dictators.

People drew one too many conclusions from that.

Is that equivalent to pushing the great replacement theory? No it isn't.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Exaggeration and speculation not full on conspiracy theory. Members of the Trump team did meet with Russian officials and colluded with hackers and Trump had a bizarre attitude to foreign policy and dictators.

People drew one too many conclusions from that.

Is that equivalent to pushing the great replacement theory? No it isn't.

See, the way it works is, anyone Dax has the remotest affinity for can effectively act as illegally or amorally as they want, as long as someone he doesn’t like/disagrees with steps on a fucking spider or fails to open a car door for a date or some shit. Then both are the same because they’ve either done something wrong, or made mistakes.

He’s like a 16th century pope giving out indulgences, the cost being that someone on the “other side” did something, which means we aren’t allowed by his rules to compare, weigh, nor criticize.

All because he’s either blind to the rot that has eaten the conservative cause from within, or he doesn’t have the stones to call it out.

He’s like a painting of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Dax777]

In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com

According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.

They are not very reliable for many reasons. I'll demonstrate.below

So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?

PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal

There are multiple problems with Politifacts. It's quite obvious they lean heavily left once you examine their ratings closely.

So let's do just that: Examine some examples of seemingly questionable fact-checks

Tucker Carlson:
Claim: Says Kamala Harris "said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.”
Politifacts Conclusion: MOSTLY FALSE.

Now let's dig deeper:

• Over the span of a few days in 2019, four women accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching, holding or kissing. To which Harris said she believed those women.
• On April 2, 2019, then-candidate Kamala Harris said about these four women: “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it

Why then did Politifacts conclude Carlson was Mostly False?

Apparently, Tucker's claim is MOSTLY false coz the women did not explicitly claim sexual assault. "Some explicitly said it wasn’t.:"

Now, here Politifacts gave us this definition of sexual assault.

Sexual assault refers to "sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim,"

So we know one element 'without consent' was satisfied. The question is now whether the acts were sexual contact or behaviors and whether the women felt they were victimized.

Now let's fact check Politifacts here:
Let's examine those contacts that were NOT sexual assault. In 2016 after sharing her sexual assault story, Caitlin Caruso claimed Biden "hugged her just a little bit too long and then laid his hand on her thighs."

Here's how she described it to the NY Times "It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,”

In what way does the above description NOT implicate Sexual Assault? But apparently, because she didn't actually bust out the words 'sexual assault. Politifacts concluded it is false to characterize it as such.

Below is a link to the 4 womens story from.left leaning 'The Cut"

https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html?regwall-newsletter-signup=true

This Carlson claim by most fair standard is ALL true.

It's True about what Harris said. 2. True about what Harris was implying when she said it. And 3. True about the experience of at least 2 of those women.

Yet Politifacts concludes it's most false.

Thats Politifacts for you.

I have a few more examples on both Tucker and Maddow I can use as an examples. But this is getting long and I doubt you are really interested in them.

One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.

You should read the fact checks themselves! Not just the summaries or graphs.

Let me know if you want the writeup on the Maddow's ridiculous Mostly True fact check and how it's problematic.

To conclude here is Larry Elder's descriptions of Politifacts fact checking his claims in which they concluded his claims were FALSE!
Enjoy:)
:

 

[Dax777]

See, the way it works is, anyone Dax has the remotest affinity for can effectively act as illegally or amorally as they want, as long as someone he doesn’t like/disagrees with steps on a fucking spider or fails to open a car door for a date or some shit. Then both are the same because they’ve either done something wrong, or made mistakes.

Such projection: The issue here is misinformation. Not illegal acts which arent an issue here. Now is what's moral.

The question here is quite simple. Do they misinform at similar rates or don't they?

Your moral musings aren't needed on this.
I know you think you these verbal slight of hand attempts are great. But they aren't fooling anyone.

Do the both consistently misinform? Without a doubt. They both do. Consistently.

He’s like a 16th century pope giving out indulgences, the cost being that someone on the “other side” did something, which means we aren’t allowed by his rules to compare, weigh, nor criticize.

All because he’s either blind to the rot that has eaten the conservative cause from within, or he doesn’t have the stones to call it out.

He’s like a painting of cognitive dissonance.

Yes, the guy saying Carlson misinforms doesn't have balls to call it out. But the one who paints Maddow's misinformation as 'exaggerations' that's the one with balls. Lol.

Your attempts at pretending to be dense isn't working. Tru a different angle.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Such projection: The issue here is misinformation. Not illegal acts which arent an issue here. Now is what's moral.

The question here is quite simple. Do they misinform at similar rates or don't they?

Your moral musings aren't needed on this.
I know you think you these verbal slight of hand attempts are great. But they aren't fooling anyone.

Do the both consistently misinform? Without a doubt. They both do. Consistently.



Yes, the guy saying Carlson misinforms doesn't have balls to call it out. But the one who paints Maddow's misinformation as 'exaggerations' that's the one with balls. Lol.

Your attempts at pretending to be dense isn't working. Tru a different angle.

Once again, more proof: you’re a meme. You are this joke account in real life.



Of course you don’t want my moral musings. I don’t blame you. Because they expose your whataboutery for exactly what it is — a transparent attempt to absolve the wrongs of the lot you’ve glued yourself to. And you know this, but pretend you don’t. Talk about not fooling anyone.

Oh so Carlson misinforms? Agreed. But you will never — and cannot — criticize Carlson et al in isolation without referring to someone on “the other side”. That goes for the broad scope of nearly every topic on nearly every thread related to politics.

In fact, I dare you to do it. I dare you to offer up criticisms of only the worst of the right for a week on this thread. No reference to the other side.

You won’t. You can’t.

 

[Dax777]

Once again, more proof: you’re a meme. You are this joke account in real life.



Of course you don’t want my moral musings. I don’t blame you. Because they expose your whataboutery for exactly what it is — a transparent attempt to absolve the wrongs of the lot you’ve glued yourself to. And you know this, but pretend you don’t. Talk about not fooling anyone.

No Foggybrains... I don't care for your musings coz they are just a poor attempt to change the topic and control the narrative. I've seen it enough to know it.

Oh so Carlson misinforms? Agreed. But you will never — and cannot — criticize Carlson et al in isolation without referring to someone on “the other side”. That goes for the broad scope of nearly every topic on nearly every thread related to politics.

That's because these threads are mostly partisan threads with a strong group think.

My general role often in these threads is to point out glaring hypocrisies. I know you don't like that :)

In fact, I dare you to do it. I dare you to offer up criticisms of only the worst of the right for a week on this thread. No reference to the other side.

You won’t. You can’t.

Typical! Always demanding of others what you never do of yourself.

I dare you to show evidence of your 1 week of criticism of only the worst of the left on this thread.

I know you wont. Coz you can't.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

No Foggybrains... I don't care for your musings coz they are just a poor attempt to change the topic and control the narrative. I've seen it enough to know it.

That's because these threads are mostly partisan threads with a strong group think.

My general role often in these threads is to point out glaring hypocrisies. I know you don't like that :)


Typical! Always demanding of others what you never do of yourself.

I dare you to show evidence of your 1 week of criticism of only the worst of the left on this thread.

I know you wont. Coz you can't.

LOL. I’ve already demonstrated that, and do it regularly. Go ask Bigga. Or ask Rascal.

No one is mistaking me for a leftist except you.

So — in an incredible shock — you’re wrong. Again.

 

[SWP's back]

This is an absolute horseshit post from someone who I guarantee has never worked in, nor dealt with, media of any kind -- including any of the organizations mentioned (unlike yours truly, who has dealt with ALL of them) -- but at least you've found a way to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

It is truly staggering how little you know compared to how much you think you know. It really is.

:-)

 

[SWP's back]

@Dax777
You seem to equate Rachel Maddow's broadcasts with those of Tucker Carlson, in terms of factual content and - correct me if I'm wrong - equal in spreading disinformation that may lead to public harm.

If so, it's readily apparent you're wrong on both accounts - especially the later - Tucker is insidious - Rachel is at times overzealous.

In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com

According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.

So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?

PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal.

By way of comparison, some other prominent US politicians as rated by politifact:

Republicans

PolitiFact | Donald Trump

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Ted Cruz

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/elon-musk/ (Yes, he's a Republican)

Libertarians:

PolitiFact | Rand Paul

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Democrats:

PolitiFact | Joe Biden

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Undeclared:

PolitiFact | Bill Gates

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Fox Personalities and Ex-Personalities:

PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Bill O'Reilly

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Sean Hannity

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.

Tucker and Fox are simply in the business of Demagoguery - drip feeding palatable mistruths to an addicted audience. And unfortunately, Tucker and Fox by-in-large aren't lying about items of little consequence - rather they are all in on Big Lies - lies, which if believed, will massively impact life in the United States and in some cases mankind at large.

Stop it. He’s already dead.