Coup/protest in the US

[Cray]

Would the Higgins interview form part of that evidence?

Does Higgins present conclusive evidence that the election was stolen? Did Tucker ever challenge Higgins' view that the election was stolen? Sure, interviews could be part of the evidence but if you uncritically accept everything that person says, then am not sure you are a very good journalist.

 

[lmao]

Does Higgins present conclusive evidence that the election was stolen? Did Tucker ever challenge Higgins' view that the election was stolen? Sure, interviews could be part of the evidence but if you uncritically accept everything that person says, then am not sure you are a very good journalist.

Now it has to be "conclusive"? Nice shift of the goalposts.

 

[lmao]

An instinctive response..

Fear is both a feature and a bug.

I'm more and more thinking of it as a feature.

Take a look next time you introduce a new piece of information, examine the responses to see whether it actually acknowledges the new information or not. I think you'll find that time and time again, they don't even know how to react to it until someone on THEIR side reports what the other side said so that a response can be formulated.

And the MSM is on the back foot now, they have no choice but to be reactive.

Which means we have all the initiative.

 

[Cray]

Now it has to be "conclusive"? Nice shift of the goalposts.

If a journalist has concluded that the election was stolen I would have thought that "conclusive" evidence for that fact should be provided, really not seeing how this is at all controversial.

 

[lmao]

If a journalist has concluded that the election was stolen I would have thought that "conclusive" evidence for that fact should be provided, really not seeing how this is at all controversial.

Journalists are entitled to their opinions, especially if they report what their conclusions are as THEIR conclusions.

Besides that, assuming that they are in a position to get conclusive evidence before making claims is absurd. They are not gods, they are not the FBI or the courts with subpoena power. They are little more than glorified bloggers.

Which is to say that so long as they do not misrepresent the evidence they are presenting, to demand that it be conclusive before they share it is grossly irrational. People would never be able to report anything if this was the standard journalists attempted to operate by. And if any source of information would presume to tell you otherwise, that's a RED FLAG that they are a propaganda outfit attempting to lull you into letting them think for you.

 

[Cray]

Journalists are entitled to their opinions, especially if they report what their conclusions are as THEIR conclusions.

But if those journalists want to be considered reliable they should at least share the evidence that led them to make that conclusion. If said evidence is weak or not convincing to the rest of us, we can then make the determination that said journalist is unreliable, which is what @BBSA said. You may or may not agree with BBSA's characterization of TC, but I do.

Besides that, assuming that they are in a position to get conclusive evidence before making claims is absurd. They are not gods, they are not the FBI or the courts with subpoena power. They are little more than glorified bloggers.

Which is to say that so long as they do not misrepresent the evidence they are presenting, to demand that it be conclusive before they share it is grossly irrational. People would never be able to report anything if this was the standard journalists attempted to operate by. And if any source of information would presume to tell you otherwise, that's a RED FLAG that they are a propaganda outfit attempting to lull you into letting them think for you.

When stories are broken journalists have sources. Those sources are checked and cross-checked. Sometimes those sources are wrong and the story has to be withdrawn. No story is perfect but also journalists should generally report the facts, not make sweeping statements like "the Election was stolen". If you want to prove that the election was stolen you need to present the facts of where and how it was stolen, how the votes where stolen, how many etc.

Do you think that the evidence available currently supports the claim that the election was stolen?

 

[lexity]

Does Higgins present conclusive evidence that the election was stolen?

Why are you asking me?

Have you at least watched the Higgins interview?

Did Tucker ever challenge Higgins' view that the election was stolen?

I don't know.

Again, this is why you listen to both sides.

Sure, interviews could be part of the evidence

Ok

but if you uncritically accept everything that person says, then am not sure you are a very good journalist.

He doesn't have to be unbiased to be 'a very good journalist', tho', right?

That's where you and I are supposed to come in.

For you to get to the truth, is it required of you to factor in a journalists bias? Or to suppress it through self-censorship?

It's either one or the other. It can't be both. So which is it, for you?

 

[lmao]

But if those journalists want to be considered reliable they should at least share the evidence that led them to make that conclusion. If said evidence is weak or not convincing to the rest of us, we can then make the determination that said journalist is unreliable, which is what @BBSA said. You may or may not agree with BBSA's characterization of TC, but I do.

No one said the evidence was not presented.

Claiming that someone is unreliable as a way to not to even examine what they claim is not indicative of a healthy thinking process.

When stories are broken journalists have sources. Those sources are checked and cross-checked. Sometimes those sources are wrong and the story has to be withdrawn. No story is perfect but also journalists should generally report the facts, not make sweeping statements like "the Election was stolen". If you want to prove that the election was stolen you need to present the facts of where and how it was stolen, how the votes where stolen, how many etc.

Actually, regarding elections the onus is on the record keepers to verify that everything was on the up and up. They neglected to discharge their responsibilities appropriately, and everyone else is entitled to be suspicious of the BS that was proffered in place of verification.

Do you think that the evidence available currently supports the claim that the election was stolen?

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election

More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.

www.rasmussenreports.com

I think it is fair to conclude that about 20% of the mail-in votes cast were illegitimate. 20% seems like more than enough to conclude that the results as a whole were illegitimate.

If you disagree, please explain why.

 

[Supervan II]

Almost like there's an immune response that unthinkingly attacks anything that might threaten the narrative.

Like CoVid perhaps?

 

[lexity]

Now it has to be "conclusive"? Nice shift of the goalposts.

If a journalist has concluded that the election was stolen I would have thought that "conclusive" evidence for that fact should be provided, really not seeing how this is at all controversial.

Gathering evidence - just like making sense of the world around you - is a process, not merely the conclusion or the end, itself.

Maybe you are used to the party with the largest cache of guns, acquired through theft, coming to you and delivering a package with 'The Truth' etched in gilt, on a silver platter.

You, the individual, have to make sense of the information that is available form all sources. As many different takes as you can find. Otherwise you can't have an opinion on the matter. And this is an ongoing process.

That should be a given. Otherwise you are on a downward-sloping trajectory towards a very totalitarian hard-landing.

 

[Cray]

He doesn't have to be unbiased to be 'a very good journalist', tho', right?

That's where you and I are supposed to come in.

For you to get to the truth, is it required of you to factor in a journalists bias? Or to suppress it through self-censorship?

If a journalist constantly says things that I believe are nonsense or not backed up by facts I tend not to waste my time on them, TC falls into that category.. I have not listened to the Higgins interview because I don't believe that TC is honest in the way he presents his stories, I have found him to be unreliable in the past hence I tend not to waste time on his reporting. If, in the future, it turns out that he has become super ethical and uncovered an actual massive electoral conspiracy then I might revise that opinion. Am not holding my breath though.

 

[lmao]

If a journalist constantly says things that I believe are nonsense or not backed up by facts I tend not to waste my time on them, TC falls into that category.. I have not listened to the Higgins interview because I don't believe that TC is honest in the way he presents his stories, I have found him to be unreliable in the past hence I tend not to waste time on his reporting. If, in the future, it turns out that he has become super ethical and uncovered an actual massive electoral conspiracy then I might revise that opinion. Am not holding my breath though.

Your problem is that we now have evidence that you don't draw conclusions based upon evidence.

 

[Cray]

Your problem is that we now have evidence that you don't draw conclusions based upon evidence.

Okay lmao.

 

[lmao]

Okay lmao.

You were only too happy to engage in what you thought was a winning point up until the Rasmussen poll appeared.

Now, suddenly you appear to not want to apply your mind to the presented facts. Rasmussen isn't some right-wing outfit. Rasmussen isn't Tucker Carlson. Removing 20% of the mail-in votes in the 5 precincts where shutdowns occurred and preserving the R/D voting proportion for the remaining 80% would have given Trump the win in those precincts and would have handed Trump the presidency.

Which is to say that your requests for evidence appear to have been made in bad faith.

So, why should anyone even take the time to answer your questions, given your sea-lioning?

 

[Cray]

You were only too happy to engage in what you thought was a winning point up until the Rasmussen poll appeared.

Now, suddenly you appear to not want to apply your mind to the presented facts. Rasmussen isn't some right-wing outfit. Rasmussen isn't Tucker Carlson.

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[3]: 233–234 [4] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.

Yup, very trustworthy...

 

[lmao]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute



Yup, very trustworthy...

So your allegation is that they must be lying?

You can just completely up-end voting regulations just before an election and flood the entire country with mail-in ballots, and nothing shady will transpire?

Well, all I can say is, you're going to be very useful between now and November.

 

[Temujin]

You were only too happy to engage in what you thought was a winning point up until the Rasmussen poll appeared.

Now, suddenly you appear to not want to apply your mind to the presented facts. Rasmussen isn't some right-wing outfit. Rasmussen isn't Tucker Carlson. Removing 20% of the mail-in votes in the 5 precincts where shutdowns occurred and preserving the R/D voting proportion for the remaining 80% would have given Trump the win in those precincts and would have handed Trump the presidency.

Which is to say that your requests for evidence appear to have been made in bad faith.

So, why should anyone even take the time to answer your questions, given your sea-lioning?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741959818087457063

 

[lmao]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741959818087457063

Nevermind that the actual numbers violate Benford's Law, etc. etc.

 

[lexity]

He doesn't have to be unbiased to be 'a very good journalist', tho', right?

That's where you and I are supposed to come in.

For you to get to the truth, is it required of you to factor in a journalists bias? Or to suppress it through self-censorship?

If a journalist constantly says things that I believe are nonsense or not backed up by facts I tend not to waste my time on them, TC falls into that category.. I have not listened to the Higgins interview because I don't believe that TC is honest in the way he

You're self-censoring.

You don't trust TC but there are at least 2 people in every interview.

The fact someone has to point this out to you, says an awful lot about how you go about arriving at your conclusions.

 

[lexity]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741959818087457063

**** me!