5 ms·

There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": 1. "Throwing eligible voters off the rolls, r

by ttfkam 3y ago

There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": 1. "Throwing eligible voters off the rolls, reducing polling places in left-leaning districts, and increasing polling places in right-leaning districts hijacked the election." 2. "Millions of fraudulent ballots manufactured in China (identifiable from the bamboo threads), 2,000 voter fraud mules (gathered from cell tower connections anywhere in the same square mile of a ballot drop box), and illegal immigrants in polling places stole the election." The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/so... The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even internal emails at Fox News and Trump's own attorney general all loudly dismiss 2020 election steal conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even most of Trump's attorneys were VERY careful not to assert voter fraud in court due to their lack of evidence, even in front of Trump-appointed conservative judges. Those that went ahead were sanctioned by the court for lack of evidence. Rudy Giuliani kept saying in front of cameras there was evidence of widespread voter fraud EXCEPT in court in front of a judge, where he explicitly said, "This is not a fraud case." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-privately-versus-air-false/story?id=97662551 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-pri... https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump-lawyers-election-lawsuit-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump... https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims.

rvz 3y ago
Looks like we will certainly be manipulated and fall for it again in 2024 then. Thanks to 'misinformation' powered by AI.
Georgelemental 3y ago
Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob version of the other side's arguments." Here, I'll try: > There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": > 1. " Eliminating ID requirements in left-leaning cities, and extending early voting to before the debates affected the election." > 2. "Direct high-level collusion between one of the candidates and the Russian Federation, as part of a treasonous plot to overthrow American democracy and cover up the Pee Tape (they'll release it any day now!), stole the election." > The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection-voter-id-law https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection... https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-biden-voters-north-carolina-could-pick-soon-next-n1235688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-bide... > The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even surreptitious recordings of CNN producers all loudly dismiss 2016 Russia collusion conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even Robert Mueller was VERY careful not to assert treason in his report due to the lack of evidence, even in front of a Democratic House of Representatives. Adam Schiff kept saying in front of cameras that there was evidence of widespread collusion. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-s... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-12837cnn https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collus... https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-russian-collusion-damning-sot-sotu.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-r... > So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims. The 2016 election taught me that the institutions I once believed to be respectable and honorable were actually completely dishonest and totally off their rocker. The 2020 election taught me that "my side" was capable of just as much insanity. To fix our problems, we must go beyond blind loyalty to our respective "teams."

by ttfkam 3y ago

rvz 3y ago

Looks like we will certainly be manipulated and fall for it again in 2024 then. Thanks to 'misinformation' powered by AI.

Georgelemental 3y ago

Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob version of the other side's arguments." Here, I'll try: > There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": > 1. " Eliminating ID requirements in left-leaning cities, and extending early voting to before the debates affected the election." > 2. "Direct high-level collusion between one of the candidates and the Russian Federation, as part of a treasonous plot to overthrow American democracy and cover up the Pee Tape (they'll release it any day now!), stole the election." > The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection-voter-id-law https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection... https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-biden-voters-north-carolina-could-pick-soon-next-n1235688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-bide... > The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even surreptitious recordings of CNN producers all loudly dismiss 2016 Russia collusion conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even Robert Mueller was VERY careful not to assert treason in his report due to the lack of evidence, even in front of a Democratic House of Representatives. Adam Schiff kept saying in front of cameras that there was evidence of widespread collusion. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-s... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-12837cnn https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collus... https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-russian-collusion-damning-sot-sotu.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-r... > So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims. The 2016 election taught me that the institutions I once believed to be respectable and honorable were actually completely dishonest and totally off their rocker. The 2020 election taught me that "my side" was capable of just as much insanity. To fix our problems, we must go beyond blind loyalty to our respective "teams."