Trump Shreds Kamala In Rigged 3 v 1 Debate

[SevMax2]

You can find out for yourself

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

They rated Newsweek as "center." That doesn't help their credibility with me.

 

[InThe312]

Who owns or operates this chart? I have to wonder....

Jesus, take off your tinfoil hat. They are respected for their work and are fully transparent in their operations and development of the chart. It also passes the smell test just by looking at it, if anyone ever bothered.

 

[SevMax2]

Jesus, take off your tinfoil hat. They are respected for their work and are fully transparent in their operations and development of the chart. It also passes the smell test just by looking at it, if anyone ever bothered.

Frankly, I don't trust anyone right now. People are going to have to earn my trust. I don't know these guys. That's a long road to hoe these days.

 

[InThe312]

You can find out for yourself

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

https://adfontesmedia.com/gallery/

I actually prefer this one because it also rates the reliability of the source.

 

[ll74]

They rated Newsweek as "center." That doesn't help their credibility with me.

The question was who owns and operates it.

If you're concerned about credibility, perhaps take a look at their methodology for criticism, which is also mentioned on the page.

 

[InThe312]

They rated Newsweek as "center." That doesn't help their credibility with me.

Ad Fontes also ranks Newsweek as "center" but does ding them on reliability a bit.

 

[SevMax2]

The question was who owns and operates it.

If you're concerned about credibility, perhaps take a look at their methodology for criticism, which is also mentioned on the page.

I know what the question was. I asked it. I asked that question with a view toward determining their reliability. If they are owned and operated by lackeys of the elite, that doesn't help them with me.

 

[ll74]

I know what the question was. I asked it. I asked that question with a view toward determining their reliability. If they are owned and operated by lackeys of the elite, that doesn't help them with me.

If ownership is more important than methodology, then you're not discussing credibility and instead are discussing your own bias.

 

[InThe312]

Frankly, I don't trust anyone right now. People are going to have to earn my trust. I don't know these guys. That's a long road to hoe these days.

If you don't trust anyone then you shouldn't be posting anything that you can't back up with your own, personal, independent PRIMARY research that you conducted.

 

[SevMax2]

If you don't trust anyone then you shouldn't be posting anything that you can't back up with your own, personal, independent PRIMARY research that you conducted.

Whatever, dude. If I can verify a source, that's one thing. Sadly, most of the "fact checkers" are unreliable themselves and need to be fact-checked, too. I was using hyperbole, but you would know that if you paid any attention or used your brain for something other than filling up with simple-minded dogma. My point is simply that the ownership of the site has a great relevance as to its reliability and bias. Methodology is important, but so are the bias and the management of the site.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

 

[RobDownSouth]

All anti-Trump propaganda sources. They don't do journalism anymore.

They're not "anti-Trump propaganda sources". They're editorial commentary (just like yours!). They simply represent that your position is not the last word on David Muir. No "journalism" here, just opinion.

 

[InThe312]

Whatever, dude. If I can verify a source, that's one thing. Sadly, most of the "fact checkers" are unreliable themselves and need to be fact-checked, too. I was using hyperbole, but you would know that if you paid any attention or used your brain for something other than filling up with simple-minded dogma. My point is simply that the ownership of the site has a great relevance as to its reliability and bias.

Cute. So who are YOUR verified, reliable sources? You dismissed two independent bias charts without "fact checking" either of them. In 5 minutes, you could have easily looked up both of the sources and made your own judgement, but you questioned their motives for no real reason in order to dismiss a statement that breitbart (of all fucking places) has multiple reliable data sources that say they lean heavily right and basically publish bull shit.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. At 1:05am today, you stated multiple "facts":

"The sad thing about statistics these days is that they just aren't as reliable as they used to be because of the inherent conflict of interest between academia, government, business, etc. Government involvement and corporate interference will corrupt the findings, among other things. If a person abandons their principles to serve the State, well, it raises real questions, because the government is very prone to lie to us, as is Wall Street. Just look at Big Tobacco, for instance. They lied to us for decades. Sad to say, people are regularly doctoring stats, cooking the books, fudging the numbers, because money and power are motives to academics and scientists, too."

What sources did you use to determine that statics aren't as reliable as they used to be? I'm certain you didn't do the primary research. Why is there inherent conflict of interest in statistics? If it's not ALL statistics, because you know, hyperbole, then why not just refer to some statistics? The government is prone to lie to us? What is your source for this? Have they lied directly to you so many times that you can now characterize the government (that's a really broad group by the way) as prone to lie? Do you have documentation of all the times the government has lied to you, thus creating your own primary research study? How about Wall Street. How has Wall Street lied to you? What evidence do you possess that academia is cooking the books and doctoring statistics? Perhaps you should go public with your findings so we can root out the bad actors.

I stand by my previous statement. You, and specifically you, shouldn't be stating anything as factual because you don't have any source for your "facts" that is reliable and you're paranoid. You have developed opinions based on whatever you read in the news or on the internet or what you heard at the water cooler from someone who heard whatever on the internet, however you're not the least bit willing to admit it nor apply any critical thinking to the data and the sources that you're consuming before regurgitating completely unoriginal thought on the internet. At least have the balls to admit that you're just saying bullshit on the internet that that isn't the least bit defensible.

 

[SevMax2]

Cute. So who are YOUR verified, reliable sources? You dismissed two independent bias charts without "fact checking" either of them. In 5 minutes, you could have easily looked up both of the sources and made your own judgement, but you questioned their motives for no real reason in order to dismiss a statement that breitbart (of all fucking places) has multiple reliable data sources that say they lean heavily right and basically publish bull shit.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. At 1:05am today, you stated multiple "facts":

"The sad thing about statistics these days is that they just aren't as reliable as they used to be because of the inherent conflict of interest between academia, government, business, etc. Government involvement and corporate interference will corrupt the findings, among other things. If a person abandons their principles to serve the State, well, it raises real questions, because the government is very prone to lie to us, as is Wall Street. Just look at Big Tobacco, for instance. They lied to us for decades. Sad to say, people are regularly doctoring stats, cooking the books, fudging the numbers, because money and power are motives to academics and scientists, too."

What sources did you use to determine that statics aren't as reliable as they used to be? I'm certain you didn't do the primary research. Why is there inherent conflict of interest in statistics? If it's not ALL statistics, because you know, hyperbole, then why not just refer to some statistics? The government is prone to lie to us? What is your source for this? Have they lied directly to you so many times that you can now characterize the government (that's a really broad group by the way) as prone to lie? Do you have documentation of all the times the government has lied to you, thus creating your own primary research study? How about Wall Street. How has Wall Street lied to you? What evidence do you possess that academia is cooking the books and doctoring statistics? Perhaps you should go public with your findings so we can root out the bad actors.

I stand by my previous statement. You, and specifically you, shouldn't be stating anything as factual because you don't have any source for your "facts" that is reliable and you're paranoid. You have developed opinions based on whatever you read in the news or on the internet or what you heard at the water cooler from someone who heard whatever on the internet, however you're not the least bit willing to admit it nor apply any critical thinking to the data and the sources that you're consuming before regurgitating completely unoriginal thought on the internet. At least have the balls to admit that you're just saying bullshit on the internet that that isn't the least bit defensible.

Whatever. I wasn't defending Breitbart. I was asking questions. I wasn't even saying that they're a bad site. I was asking questions. In any case, if after the repeated lies exposed in the Pentagon Papers and the Afghanistan Papers, just two obvious, glaring examples that come to mind, haven't convinced you that the government frequently lies, then I hold out no hope for you. The government is tainted, its record is tainted, and any association with it taints those who are on its payroll with at least some doubt as to their veracity. Simply put, the government has been caught so many times lying that it's easy to lose track. The lack of WMDs in Iraq, for instance. If you can't see the obvious conflict of interest inherent in the dubious partnership between institutions that should keep some distance from each other in order to preserve their impartiality, which should be clear to anyone with more brain cells than an amoeba, I wash my hands of you.

Cooking the books is nothing new, by the way. They did it in the Soviet Union to make it seem that they achieved their production goals for industry and agriculture. That's just one case in point, of course. As for Wall Street, again, I refer you to Big Tobacco, just as one glaring instance. They repeatedly lied to Congress and to the public and released false information to us. It sounds to me as if you're just naïve and don't like anyone challenging your naivete. You're like the sheep who listens to the other sheep warning about the goat leading them to the slaughterhouse, and then tells him, "You're paranoid. There's no way that our human owners will ever have us killed."

As for my assertion earlier, I'm convinced of it. I don't expect that you'll believe me, but I'm personally convinced of it. That's your problem, not mine. I don't waste time worrying about whether or not others agree with me. I never stated it plainly as "fact." I stated my perspective and my thoughts, my analysis on the issue. I never claimed that was undeniable, indisputable, proven, hard, empirical data. That was your interpretation of my words, not my words themselves.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

President Trump Releases Statement After Shredding Kamala Harris in Rigged 3 vs 1 ABC Debate​

by Jim Hᴏft Sep. 11, 2024 7:15 am

“President Trump delivered a masterful debate performance tonight, prosecuting Kamala Harris’ abysmal record of failure that has hurt Americans for the last 4 years.

“We saw President Trump lay out his bold vision of America and how he would continue to build upon the successes of his first term by supercharging the economy,securing the border, and stopping crime from ravaging communities across the country.

“Conversely, Kamala’s vision of America was a dark reminder of the oppressive, big government policies of Joe Biden that she wants to continue. High inflation, a porous border that allows criminals and terrorists to flood across, and being soft on crime— that is what Kamala represents.

“The choice could not be more clear— President Trump was the clear winner tonight, and he will win for America when he returns to the White House.”

More here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ases-statement-after-shredding-kamala-harris/

Trump derails Kamala's Bullshit Wagon.

Jim Hᴏft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

He sure is, isn't he?

 

[SevMax2]

https://www.allsides.com/blog/misinformation-watch-what-real-death-toll-gaza

Okay, this is an interesting story, mostly because it's my first exposure to their analysis. While I don't know how reliable they are, they seem to be approaching this particular case at least with some eye toward objectivity and balance. That's a reassuring first impression, at least.

 

[ll74]

https://www.allsides.com/blog/misinformation-watch-what-real-death-toll-gaza

Okay, this is an interesting story, mostly because it's my first exposure to their analysis. While I don't know how reliable they are, they seem to be approaching this particular case at least with some eye toward objectivity and balance. That's a reassuring first impression, at least.

But I thought you based credibility on ownership?

Weird

¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

 

[SevMax2]

But I thought you based credibility on ownership?

Weird

¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

Not solely. It is relevant. But it is not the sole basis. If you bother to read the entire post, you'd know that.

 

[ll74]

Not solely. It is relevant. But it is not the sole basis. If you bother to read the entire post, you'd know that.

Of course

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

https://www.allsides.com/blog/misinformation-watch-what-real-death-toll-gaza

Okay, this is an interesting story, mostly because it's my first exposure to their analysis. While I don't know how reliable they are, they seem to be approaching this particular case at least with some eye toward objectivity and balance. That's a reassuring first impression, at least.

A lot of people on the left have uncritically accepted Hamas' casualty figures as fact. I'm glad to hear that the truth is finally coming out.

 

[SmoothAndSweet]

What was your favorite "substance" that trump fed you?

Substance you ask? gotta be the people eating little fido and meow meow

 

[SevMax2]

A lot of people on the left have uncritically accepted Hamas' casualty figures as fact. I'm glad to hear that the truth is finally coming out.

For once, we agree on something....waiting for the trumpets to blow...nope, just wind and rain here in East Texas....

 

[InThe312]

In any case, if after the repeated lies exposed in the Pentagon Papers and the Afghanistan Papers, just two obvious, glaring examples that come to mind

So, you trust a government source exposing the lies of the government. Makes sense.

Cooking the books is nothing new, by the way. They did it in the Soviet Union to make it seem that they achieved their production goals for industry and agriculture. That's just one case in point, of course. As for Wall Street, again, I refer you to Big Tobacco, just as one glaring instance. They repeatedly lied to Congress and to the public and released false information to us.

Again, YOU don't know this information from your own interviews of Soviets, big tobacco or wall street or your own research into the effects of tobacco. You got this information from from a source, probably the media. How do YOU know tobacco was lying? Maybe it was the government that was lying about tobacco as they are prone to do. Perhaps the judges were corrupt.

As for my assertion earlier, I'm convinced of it. I don't expect that you'll believe me, but I'm personally convinced of it. That's your problem, not mine. I don't waste time worrying about whether or not others agree with me. I never stated it plainly as "fact." I stated my perspective and my thoughts, my analysis on the issue. I never claimed that was undeniable, indisputable, proven, hard, empirical data. That was your interpretation of my words, not my words themselves.

No, you said "statistics aren't as reliable as they used to be". You didn't say "I don't really trust statistics because I don't believe the sources to be true" or "I don't THINK statistics are as reliable as they used to be". You stated what is a fact to you and because you wanted others to think that's a fact. It was your words, not my interpretation of them.

My point continues to be that your conjecture is not always fact and you stated publicly here that you don't trust anyone as a source. So not the government, not corporations, not academia, not the bible, etc. Since you did none of the primary research for anything you have commented on, you must have trusted some source for that information and maybe, just maybe, your bias is showing in your sources way more than you're willing to admit. Potentially anything that comes out of your keyboard could be complete bullshit, which is exactly how we get to a presidential candidate on national TV telling millions of people that they're eating pets in Ohio.

You can call me whatever juvenile names you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[SmokingFap]

A lot of people on the left have uncritically accepted Hamas' casualty figures as fact. I'm glad to hear that the truth is finally coming out.

Which truth? You are obviously and heavily biased towards Israel, which is, of course, your right. But the "truth" you believe in isn't any more reliable than other "truths". As always in situations like this, I bet the actual death toll is, as yet and maybe forever, unknown, but it is likely somewhere in between the two sides' estimates.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Which truth? You are obviously and heavily biased towards Israel, which is, of course, your right. But the "truth" you believe in isn't any more reliable than other "truths". As always in situations like this, I bet the actual death toll is, as yet and maybe forever, unknown, but it is likely somewhere in between the two sides' estimates.

You shouldn't give equal credence to the claims of a terrorist organization vs. the word of a democratically-elected government. You don't have to believe Israel uncritically, but the word of Hamas is utterly worthless.