The Decline of the American Media IV

In the right circumstances a dementia patient could get more votes than Obama. I would argue those circumstances existed after 1st term of Trump, Covid, and J6. All of these polarizing events packed together can and should translate into more votes for a candidate. Obama's election was rigged because really there is no way this country could ever elect a black man as President, right?

And let's be real for a minute, Obama's election scorned a bunch of conservative power brokers and they unleashed fury on our politics, government, economy, safety, and general welfare.

[/QUOTE] It's called common sense. The idea that a dementia patient got more votes than Barrack Obama, one of the most popular presidents in modern history, is just laugh-out-loud ridiculous. Recounts are stupid. A full forensic audit would have been called-for in this situation in my opinion. But that's all it is: an opinion. Trump winning in 2020 wouldn't have changed as much as some think.
[/QUOTE]
 
In the right circumstances a dementia patient could get more votes than Obama. I would argue those circumstances existed after 1st term of Trump,

Which was no better or worse than the Obama administration. Before COVID, one could make a strong argument that he was doing pretty well, despite being surrounded by the Dubya sycophants he was stupid enough to bring into his administration.


Granted, we wouldn't know the real damage of COVID until after we realized the government response was worse than the virus. Operation warpspeed was an obscenity that rightfully SHOULD have poleaxed his presidency.


That was after the fact. It had zero bearing on the 2020 election.

All of these polarizing events packed together can and should translate into more votes for a candidate.

Perhaps, but losing all bellweather counties (but one, I think) and still winning the election? Every past marker was thrown into the wind and hardly a peep from the legacy media. And do bear in mind that I've never said that Trump won 2020. I'm just not buying 81 million votes. There is a huge difference between the two.

Obama's election was rigged because really there is no way this country could ever elect a black man as President, right?

LOL, I have no love for Colin Powell, but he deserves credit for showing that the U.S. has moved past this nonsense. We went from a nation that got ticked off at a black woman for refusing to sit in the back of the bus to a nation that got ticked off at a black man who refused to run for president. Back in those days, I cared little for the doings of D.C., but even I caught enough to know this. Mind you, my first vote went to one William Jefferson Clinton.

And let's be real for a minute, Obama's election scorned a bunch of conservative power brokers and they unleashed fury on our politics, government, economy, safety, and general welfare.

Only for a minute, but when it became obvious that Obama was going to continue the Bush war machine and expand the number of countries we were bombing from two to seven, all was forgiven. He took RomneyCare (a Republican healthcare plan) and turned it into ObamaCare. Insurance companies were making money hand-over-fist and so a huzzah was shouted forth from the establishment Uniparty whose campaign coffers relied heavily on these very industries.

Most of the contempt for Obama that oozed out of D.C. Republican pie-holes was nothing more than political theater. There are times when I wondered if it always was. Sigh, I guess it hardly matters now. Republicans have bigger problems than history as the civil war between the America First denomination and the Bush neo-cons continues to rage. The Democrats continue to refuse to acknowledge why they lost in 2024. The Libertarian party is as big a dumpster fire as it has ever been. The only guaranteed winners in any election are the rich who hedge their bets by supporting both sides. The only guaranteed losers are the people who keep showing up at the polls hoping for real change.

Welp, now that I've brought the whole room down, I'll end this with a favorite quote in honor of Rob Reiner. "Good night, Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning."
 
Here is an example of a forehead slapper:

The Independent, which I read from time to time, published this headline

Far-right flag used by Jan 6 rioters flown above government agency in DC

The "far right flag linked to Jan 6" is the Appeal to Heaven" flag.
An_Appeal_to_Heaven_Flag.svg.jpg
This was a flag flown in the American Revolution. The pine tree is a symbol of New England and the phrase "an appeal to heaven" comes from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government where Locke is addressing the right of revolution:

"where the body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of their right, or is under the exercise of a power without right, and have no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven, whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment."

I do not think that the US Federal Small Business Administration is actually encouraging a revolution, but remembering, at the semiquincentennial of the American Revolution, the founding of the United States.
The Independent could easily have checked and researched this. Instead they went for the controversy. I'm a little disappointed in the Independent here.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: CrimsonJazz
The Independent could easily have checked and researched this. Instead they went for the controversy. I'm a little disappointed in the Independent here.
Controversy is how you get clicks. Truth doesn't sell; I often wonder if it ever really has. True genius is figuring out how to sell something to someone that's already theirs. In this case, it's a narrative. Most media consumers only want to hear what they already "know." Just parrot back what they already believe and they will throw money at you. This is the single greatest scam in history.
 
Perhaps, but losing all bellweather counties (but one, I think) and still winning the election? Every past marker was thrown into the wind and hardly a peep from the legacy media. And do bear in mind that I've never said that Trump won 2020. I'm just not buying 81 million votes. There is a huge difference between the two.

No, there isn't.

You're saying the EXACT SAME THING - you're saying that A LOT OF fraudulent votes were cast in the 2020 election, plain and simple. You didn't use those words but if you're saying "I don't believe Biden got 81 million votes" then you're saying there was fraud somewhere along the way. MASSIVE fraud, not 20 votes not counted in Lanett, Alabama. Now, I'll concede you're NOT saying "there was enough fraud the election was stolen," but committing massive fraud to not guarantee an election win has to rank as one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. And remember - these same fraudsters left both GA Senate races to runoffs in a (mostly) red state.




Bear this in mind:
- Georgia did a hand recount of every single ballot in the state.
- Georgia's vote total went from 4.1 million to 5.025 million, an increase of almost 22%
- the national overall increase was 15.3% from 2016, LESS THAN SWING STATE GEORGIA
- of course, GA having a higher turnout made sense with TWO Senate races on the ballot
- "every past marker was thrown into the wind" - yes, because people were sitting at home and in some states going to vote was a way to get out of the house legally
- a ballot audit the Trump folks wanted in Maricopa County, AZ showed BIDEN GAINED VOTES

Furthermore, these so-called markers might make for an interesting jargon discussion or allow people to feel smart, but it's another of those political myths like the Bradley effect or Trump's own "nobody has ever won both Ohio and Florida and lost the Presidency, and I won both!"

And finally, which states had the highest turnout in 2020?

Minnesota
Maine
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Vermont
Montana
Colorado
Michigan
Oregon

Biden won 8 of the 9 states with the largest turnout.

Lowest Turnout in 2020?
Texas
Oklahoma
Hawaii
Arkansas
WVA
New York
New Mexico
Tennessee
California
Nevada
Mississippi
Indiana

So of the 12 states with the LOWEST turnout, Trump won EIGHT of them and none were really that close.
 
The ballot audit in Arizona was also performed by a company owned by a right wing Trump supporter if I remember correctly. It went on and on and on and then they quietly announced more votes from Biden and scurried off without much more to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan
The ballot audit in Arizona was also performed by a company owned by a right wing Trump supporter if I remember correctly. It went on and on and on and then they quietly announced more votes from Biden and scurried off without much more to say.


Also correct.

The problem isn't that "nobody ever audited the ballots."

The problem is they proved conclusively they were valid votes for Joe Biden.

What's funny is this: in 2016, Jill Stein pushed for recounts in states, NOT to suggest Hillary won but to get a mailing list, and after Jill had spent the money that came in and couldn't pay for the recounts, they stopped. But those recounts actually showed TRUMP picked up more stray votes than Biden did.

That's why Al Gore NEVER wanted a statewide recount in Florida in 2000. No matter what everyone thinks about ballots, YOU DON'T KNOW what they're going to show. Even in the most ruby red or navy blue county in America, YOU DON'T KNOW.


Don't worry, with Trump it's a constant moving of goalposts. If they audit, he'll whine about signatures. If they have signatures, he'll whine about how they have no way of knowing that that's "really" the signature. If they prove that, he'll come up with another concoction.

Remember: one of the many lies thrown against the wall in 2020 was the suggestion that vote counting was done in Germany by a company owned by George Soros. Also, the CIA being involved - because every conspiracy theory can always say "the CIA" and it becomes an excuse for not......you know, SHOWING any evidence, because you can always say the CIA destroyed it.
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: Huckleberry
Also correct.

The problem isn't that "nobody ever audited the ballots."

The problem is they proved conclusively they were valid votes for Joe Biden.

What's funny is this: in 2016, Jill Stein pushed for recounts in states, NOT to suggest Hillary won but to get a mailing list, and after Jill had spent the money that came in and couldn't pay for the recounts, they stopped. But those recounts actually showed TRUMP picked up more stray votes than Biden did.

That's why Al Gore NEVER wanted a statewide recount in Florida in 2000. No matter what everyone thinks about ballots, YOU DON'T KNOW what they're going to show. Even in the most ruby red or navy blue county in America, YOU DON'T KNOW.


Don't worry, with Trump it's a constant moving of goalposts. If they audit, he'll whine about signatures. If they have signatures, he'll whine about how they have no way of knowing that that's "really" the signature. If they prove that, he'll come up with another concoction.

Remember: one of the many lies thrown against the wall in 2020 was the suggestion that vote counting was done in Germany by a company owned by George Soros. Also, the CIA being involved - because every conspiracy theory can always say "the CIA" and it becomes an excuse for not......you know, SHOWING any evidence, because you can always say the CIA destroyed it.

Gore trying for selective recounts backfired... Probably better off asking for a general recount. Win or lose, you know the best approximation to the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan
Gore trying for selective recounts backfired... Probably better off asking for a general recount. Win or lose, you know the best approximation to the truth.

But he didn't want to know who actually won the state.

He just wanted to count long enough to get ahead, shut off the vote, and then let the Bush side squirm as he was. That's why he sent a battery of lawyers down to disqualify military ballots on the technicality of postmarked date. I wouldn't have minded that - except his entire argument was "technicalities shouldn't prevent votes from being counted." To be fair to Gore, though, he wasn't the only hypocrite in the scenario, either.

And despite media framing of the whole thing, Bush won 32 of 33 recounts and lost the one (the strictest recount standard that HIS OWN SIDE WAS ADVOCATING) by nine votes. Watching the press try to spin that with "but this 'really means' Gore's votes weren't counted" was one of the most amusing examples of "we are here to report the story we want, not the story that actually happened."
 
With all of the hair pulling over "60 Minutes" and NOW all of a sudden "they're biased," anyone who gave an ounce of credibility to CBS News after Rathergate and who pretends any of this started with Bari Weiss is either ill-informed or just pretending.

This wasn't the first time or even the second time "60 Minutes" retracted a story.

CBS stepped up about Rathergate while channels like Fox purposely lie nearly every day. Rather ignored journalistic standards of veryfing your source and paid the price. Fox talking heads do that nearly every day. Bush did get preferential treatment to get into the reserves. Many others similarly did the same back then also. It was common practice for those who had the power and position. Rather knew it but the 'proof' he offered was false.
 
Last edited:
This was slightly amazing.
Josh Gerstein
Josh Gerstein, the legal affairs reporter for Politico, "At some point, the amateur effort to knock on doors of home daycares intersects with robust stand-your-ground laws."

This seems like he is urging Somalis to shoot cops investigating fraud.

Readers added context: "Stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from a threat when a person is in a place they have a legal right to be.Knocking on the door of a supposedly public business does not constitute a threat, so stand-your-ground could not be invoked as a defense."

Gerstein then he backpeddles: "To observe that something is likely to happen or there's a serious risk of it happening is not to advocate for it happening."

Gerstein sounds like a bonafide legal expert. Well done Politico.
 
This was slightly amazing.
Josh Gerstein
Josh Gerstein, the legal affairs reporter for Politico, "At some point, the amateur effort to knock on doors of home daycares intersects with robust stand-your-ground laws."

This seems like he is urging Somalis to shoot cops investigating fraud.

So a liberal suddenly found justification for:
a) standing your ground (bad for Zimmerman, good for Somalis)
b) owning personal firearms (bad for everyone, good for Somalis)
c) shooting cops (cops were heroes on 1/6, they're crooked all other times)

You have to admire the bubble these people live inside.
 
So a liberal suddenly found justification for:
a) standing your ground (bad for Zimmerman, good for Somalis)
b) owning personal firearms (bad for everyone, good for Somalis)
c) shooting cops (cops were heroes on 1/6, they're crooked all other times)

You have to admire the bubble these people live inside.
I think Gerstein just did not like (a) the fact that a Youtuber did the job journalists are supposed to do but don't and (b) exposed fraud in people he feels political sympathy with.

I've heard Abby whats-her-name on CNN ask "What are day care centers supposed to do, let strange men in?" For a public accommodation, the answer is yes. Unless there is a seperate entrance for the public separate from the one used by customers' children. How is a legitimate customer supposed to engage the services of a business if the business locks the door and the business won't answer the phone? And how did the Learing Center know this Youtube was not a legitimate customer? Could public accommodations in the Deep South during the Civil Rights movement simply turned off the phones, locked their doors, and only opened them if a white person wants in? I do not think it works that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads