Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

By the way i'm not getting into a pissing match as to who is more bias because frankly i don't trust any news media with an agenda, and they all have one.

I post wasn’t about the media. I just used CNN and Fox as examples. You list isn’t exhaustive either, but you get into some really dodgy sites when you go far right.

The point was that when people are aligned to a side. Either side. They have bias to that side.
Example being people criticising X. But then giving Y a pass on for the opposite reasoning.

As an aside, I haven’t had Fox News turned on since November. Definitely were not left leaning that week. Has that changed?

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

I post wasn’t about the media.

I seen the "personal or corporate" comment but as i cannot quote or substantiate every single persons bias, nor would i attempt to, i can only direct my response towards media.

I just used CNN and Fox as examples. You list isn’t exhaustive either, but you get into some really dodgy sites when you go far right.

No its not, but i'm focusing on so called main stream media, although Huff Post and TMZ may not fall into that category precisely, my point was out of the 6 major news corporations 5 of them, and all the channels/companies they control, are biased towards left leaning/Democratic party values and opinions.

IOW even the bias is biased.

The point was that when people are aligned to a side. Either side. They have bias to that side.

Of course.

Example being people criticizing X. But then giving Y a pass on for the opposite reasoning.

I don't follow. Perhaps i'm missing the context here. Criticizing X but giving Y a pass for the opposite reasoning. Do you mean criticizing X but giving Y a pass for the same reasoning? If it were the opposite reasoning then its fair to criticize X and not Y as the two situations are not the same.

If you mean the same reasoning then yes i agree its a double standard and one that is all too common in modern day, so called, reporting.

As an aside, I haven’t had Fox News turned on since November. Definitely were not left leaning that week. Has that changed?

Leaning, albeit barely just, but leaning none the less. So much so ratings have dropped significantly and people are turning to more conservative channels that are "truer" to their values.

I used to watch Fox, granted infrequently, as they tried to hold true to the values of reporting and letting the viewer decide. Their fact based reporting made them seem cold, and it did not have the same moral outrage/virtue signaling appeal of other channels. Some hosts had a bias but i ignore them as quick as those on the "other side".

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

I seen the "personal or corporate" comment but as i cannot quote or substantiate every single persons bias, nor would i attempt to, i can only direct my response towards media.

I wouldn't attempt to substantiate every single persons bias. As I don't read or interact with every single person.
But it's quite easy to identify bias in those posts that we do interact with.

Media is one issue. But with so much content published these days being user driven, I think personal bias is becoming a bigger one. It's quite easy for people to constructed an echo chamber that reinforces whatever view they want to confirm.
I think it's health to have those views challenged by being exposed to a cross section of views.

No its not, but i'm focusing on so called main stream media, although Huff Post and TMZ may not fall into that category precisely, my point was out of the 6 major news corporations 5 of them, and all the channels/companies they control, are biased towards left leaning/Democratic party values and opinions.

I'm not TMZ counts as "news". I would have thought they were more tabloid/reality TV based. Gutter journalism, populist and flip with the wind. So they are right a few years ago, lect now and will be right mid-term.
NYP and the WSJ would be the other major right media.

Statistically neutral is the most under represented. Which I think sums up the issues in a neat bundle.

I don't follow. Perhaps i'm missing the context here. Criticizing X but giving Y a pass for the opposite reasoning. Do you mean criticizing X but giving Y a pass for the same reasoning? If it were the opposite reasoning then its fair to criticize X and not Y as the two situations are not the same.

Reasoning is what the observer uses to justify or condemn an action.
Using one reasoning to justify an action by one person, then using conflicting or opposite reasoning to condemn the same action by another person is a huge double standard. And is extremely common.

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

Media is one issue.

Media is the main issue. What is that old saying, "Never argue with someone that buys ink by the barrel". A little outdated but the concept, and meaning, is still valid.

But with so much content published these days being user driven, I think personal bias is becoming a bigger one. It's quite easy for people to constructed an echo chamber that reinforces whatever view they want to confirm.

Individual bias can form in a number of ways including, but not limited to, upbringing, family, religious beliefs, learned behaviour/belief, friends, social circles, but the biggest factor in everyone's day is the media.

I've never seen a time when people have access to so much information but are so ignorant. That stems back to what you were saying about confirmation bias, but when you have (and its happening right now) the bulk of the media (including social media) trying and, successfully, silencing any opposing opinions, refusing to debate (instead opting for screaming) and essentially sticking their fingers in their ears to any opposing argument then you will surround yourself with similar views all the time and reinforce those beliefs, however right or wrong they are.

That is what media, and again i'm referring to all media including social, is doing right now.

I think it's health to have those views challenged by being exposed to a cross section of views.

But that is not happening.

Today Irish youtuber Dave Cullen had his channel, 500,000 subscribers and 100 million views, shut down. Gone. He is a right leaning conservative who dared to question the effectiveness and science behind the continued lockdowns. Youtube gave him the usual "goes against community standards" spiel and that was that.

Dolores Cahill. A lady with a degree in Molecular Genetics from Trinity College and a PhD in Immunology had videos taken down from Youtube and other social media becuase she dared to challenge the main stream narrative on the disease, the effectiveness of the attempts to combat it and for her opinions which differed again from the main narrative.

You don't have to like or agree with these opinions, but like the hate speech laws we were speaking about earlier in this thread this is not fair and impartial discussion or debate, its outright censorship of any opposing arguments by those that control the medium through which such opinions can be dispersed.

Now here is the kicker. You tell enough people, for long enough, that something is going to happen (in any facet of life) and those that believed it already will become entrenched, those in the middle will start to lean towards that view point, and those opposed will be labelled fascists, bigots, deniers, conspiracy nuts, etc, etc.

Statistically neutral is the most under represented. Which I think sums up the issues in a neat bundle.

Those that would consider themselves neutral are not really, but even if they were they cannot be seen to be by either side, right or left. So they become the silent section of society. Afraid to rock the boat or voice their opinions for fear of being mocked, lectured or worse.

Look at the abortion referendum in 2018. I spoke to friends, family, and some people in general for a few weeks after that referendum and I cannot tell you how many people i spoke to that fell into three categories:

1. Didn't vote because they thought it was not their business (mostly men for some stupid fecking reason)
2. Didn't vote because they were afraid it would become known they chose to vote against it
3. Did vote for it but said afterwards they really wanted to vote against it but were "pressured" into it

If you break the voting numbers down it looks like this. 3.5 million registered voters. 61% turnout (roughly 2.5 million), and 64% voted to murder babies (1.36 million). As a percentage of the registered voters it comes to 39%. IOW less than a majority. As a percentage of the entire population, not that its really relevant to those that cannot vote, but its 28%.

What has all this to do with the topic at hand? Pressure and manipulation through edited and targeted media (again including social). Abortion was sold as this last gasp, only in emergencies, procedure when in fact it has turned out to be quite the opposite with a reported 6,500+ babies killed in 2019. Even those that voted for it and were quite set in their convictions have said (to me in conversation) that they are now not so sure or have completely changed their minds.

And is extremely common.

Yup, on both sides too, and is happening right now, again.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Media is the main issue. What is that old saying, "Never argue with someone that buys ink by the barrel". A little outdated but the concept, and meaning, is still valid.

Never heard that, but I like it.

I've never seen a time when people have access to so much information but are so ignorant. That stems back to what you were saying about confirmation bias, but when you have (and its happening right now) the bulk of the media (including social media) trying and, successfully, silencing any opposing opinions, refusing to debate (instead opting for screaming) and essentially sticking their fingers in their ears to any opposing argument then you will surround yourself with similar views all the time and reinforce those beliefs, however right or wrong they are.

I agree with include social media. A far bigger contributor to ignorance than mainstream media right now. And the biggest issue is not censorship. It's that all sorts of crap can be posted. Some real, some fake, some ignorant, and some intentionally misleading.

Someone can make up a lie, make it into a flashy meme or graphic, and it goes viral very quickly if it fits a world-view that people want to believe. People are doing this for fun these days. Remember chain letters and emails in the early 2000s. Send this to 10 people or a loved one dies. The same thing is happening in social media. Individuals make up fake stats/news/whatever. I don't know what kicks they get out of it. But it's incredibly damaging.

The amount of nonsense I've heard people quoting as "fact" in the last year is shocking. Stuff that takes 2 seconds to fact check or disprove. But people don't want to check if it fits the agenda, and checking can only take away the juicy gossip.

You don't have to like or agree with these opinions, but like the hate speech laws we were speaking about earlier in this thread this is not fair and impartial discussion or debate, its outright censorship of any opposing arguments by those that control the medium through which such opinions can be dispersed.

Just to be clear, I'm not ok with censorship. Opposing views are healthy. People are entitled to a view or opinion. I think deliberate misinformation is not the same as opinion. Opinion should not be stifled.

Notwithstanding, I don't think it's ok for a head of state/government to intentionally lie to the public, in any circumstances. In that situation it's not simply about freedom of expression. There is duty to the office and to the people.

Those that would consider themselves neutral are not really, but even if they were they cannot be seen to be by either side, right or left. So they become the silent section of society. Afraid to rock the boat or voice their opinions for fear of being mocked, lectured or worse.

Why should they be afraid?

The right are afraid to be lectured by the left.
The left aren't afraid to be lectured by the right.
Why should the centre be afraid to be lectured by either.

Extreme view are rarely right or optimal. I'd go as far to say never.

Look at the abortion referendum in 2018. I spoke to friends, family, and some people in general for a few weeks after that referendum and I cannot tell you how many people i spoke to that fell into three categories:

1. Didn't vote because they thought it was not their business (mostly men for some stupid fecking reason)
2. Didn't vote because they were afraid it would become known they chose to vote against it
3. Did vote for it but said afterwards they really wanted to vote against it but were "pressured" into it

If you break the voting numbers down it looks like this. 3.5 million registered voters. 61% turnout (roughly 2.5 million), and 64% voted to murder babies (1.36 million). As a percentage of the registered voters it comes to 39%. IOW less than a majority. As a percentage of the entire population, not that its really relevant to those that cannot vote, but its 28%.

What has all this to do with the topic at hand? Pressure and manipulation through edited and targeted media (again including social). Abortion was sold as this last gasp, only in emergencies, procedure when in fact it has turned out to be quite the opposite with a reported 6,500+ babies killed in 2019. Even those that voted for it and were quite set in their convictions have said (to me in conversation) that they are now not so sure or have completely changed their minds.

The abortion thing has been done to death on boards.ie. The are permanent threads about it, I don't think Shooting is the place. I think your thoughts are clear based on the above and I don't there's anything to be achieved.

As an aside, Yes the "For" side ended up only being c.40% of the total registered voters. But sure, the against side ended up being c.20%. That analysis goes both ways.

Silly Gilly

Cass wrote: »

Media is the main issue. What is that old saying, "Never argue with someone that buys ink by the barrel". A little outdated but the concept, and meaning, is still valid.


Individual bias can form in a number of ways including, but not limited to, upbringing, family, religious beliefs, learned behaviour/belief, friends, social circles, but the biggest factor in everyone's day is the media.

I've never seen a time when people have access to so much information but are so ignorant. That stems back to what you were saying about confirmation bias, but when you have (and its happening right now) the bulk of the media (including social media) trying and, successfully, silencing any opposing opinions, refusing to debate (instead opting for screaming) and essentially sticking their fingers in their ears to any opposing argument then you will surround yourself with similar views all the time and reinforce those beliefs, however right or wrong they are.

That is what media, and again i'm referring to all media including social, is doing right now.


But that is not happening.

Today Irish youtuber Dave Cullen had his channel, 500,000 subscribers and 100 million views, shut down. Gone. He is a right leaning conservative who dared to question the effectiveness and science behind the continued lockdowns. Youtube gave him the usual "goes against community standards" spiel and that was that.

Dolores Cahill. A lady with a degree in Molecular Genetics from Trinity College and a PhD in Immunology had videos taken down from Youtube and other social media becuase she dared to challenge the main stream narrative on the disease, the effectiveness of the attempts to combat it and for her opinions which differed again from the main narrative.

You don't have to like or agree with these opinions, but like the hate speech laws we were speaking about earlier in this thread this is not fair and impartial discussion or debate, its outright censorship of any opposing arguments by those that control the medium through which such opinions can be dispersed.

Now here is the kicker. You tell enough people, for long enough, that something is going to happen (in any facet of life) and those that believed it already will become entrenched, those in the middle will start to lean towards that view point, and those opposed will be labelled fascists, bigots, deniers, conspiracy nuts, etc, etc.


Those that would consider themselves neutral are not really, but even if they were they cannot be seen to be by either side, right or left. So they become the silent section of society. Afraid to rock the boat or voice their opinions for fear of being mocked, lectured or worse.

Look at the abortion referendum in 2018. I spoke to friends, family, and some people in general for a few weeks after that referendum and I cannot tell you how many people i spoke to that fell into three categories:

1. Didn't vote because they thought it was not their business (mostly men for some stupid fecking reason)
2. Didn't vote because they were afraid it would become known they chose to vote against it
3. Did vote for it but said afterwards they really wanted to vote against it but were "pressured" into it

If you break the voting numbers down it looks like this. 3.5 million registered voters. 61% turnout (roughly 2.5 million), and 64% voted to murder babies (1.36 million). As a percentage of the registered voters it comes to 39%. IOW less than a majority. As a percentage of the entire population, not that its really relevant to those that cannot vote, but its 28%.

What has all this to do with the topic at hand? Pressure and manipulation through edited and targeted media (again including social). Abortion was sold as this last gasp, only in emergencies, procedure when in fact it has turned out to be quite the opposite with a reported 6,500+ babies killed in 2019. Even those that voted for it and were quite set in their convictions have said (to me in conversation) that they are now not so sure or have completely changed their minds.


Yup, on both sides too, and is happening right now, again.

LOL, Dave Cullen, Dolores Cahill and murdering babies in one post! What is it about shooting wildlife that attracts absolute right-wing headbangers?

The world is changing and leaving dinosaurs like you, Cass, behind. Get used to it.

Cass

Silly Gilly wrote: »

LOL, Dave Cullen, Dolores Cahill and murdering babies in one post! What is it about shooting wildlife that attracts absolute right-wing headbangers?

The world is changing and leaving dinosaurs like you, Cass, behind. Get used to it.

There you go Mellor, a prime example of what i was referring to above about the left and their inability to discuss or debate something instead relying on insult, abuse and screaming.

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

I agree with include social media. A far bigger contributor to ignorance than mainstream media right now. And the biggest issue is not censorship. It's that all sorts of crap can be posted. Some real, some fake, some ignorant, and some intentionally misleading.

No doubt individuals are purposely doing this, but the majority then spread it without verifying. That is the ignorance i was speaking about.

Someone can make up a lie, make it into a flashy meme or graphic, and it goes viral very quickly if it fits a world-view that people want to believe.

This is what i was referring to when i said about personal ignorance.

The amount of nonsense I've heard people quoting as "fact" in the last year is shocking. Stuff that takes 2 seconds to fact check or disprove. But people don't want to check if it fits the agenda, and checking can only take away the juicy gossip.

Most people can find out if something is true with only a few clicks on the interweb. Most people, hopefully, know to take what they read on social media with a pinch of salt although the recent survey on where people get all their news and "facts" is worrying, but if you see it on the main stream media i'd bet that figure would jump significantly as the source is more trusted.

Just to be clear, I'm not ok with censorship. Opposing views are healthy. People are entitled to a view or opinion. I think deliberate misinformation is not the same as opinion. Opinion should not be stifled.

But it is happening. On social media, the MSM, etc. Opposing view points being ignored or removed and the discussion that should accompany a news cycle is becoming more biased. Then you have hate speech laws gaining traction which would eliminate some/a lot of the rebuttal. IOW we don't like it so we'll make it illegal to discuss.

Notwithstanding, I don't think it's ok for a head of state/government to intentionally lie to the public, in any circumstances. In that situation it's not simply about freedom of expression. There is duty to the office and to the people.

Without doubt. I've said before, and i assume you're talking about Trump, that i wouldn't defend him on a personal level and i don't think i ever have (although i am guilty of highlighting other wrong doing on "the left" to somehow justify the wrong doing being done "on the right" which is not helpful)

Why should they be afraid?

They didn't want to be known as opposed to so called progression, to go against the most vocal opinion, etc.

The abortion thing has been done to death on boards.ie. The are permanent threads about it, I don't think Shooting is the place. I think your thoughts are clear based on the above and I don't there's anything to be achieved.

Not on this forum and as this thread is the Off Topic thread its designed specifically for all non shooting chat hence the back and forth between you and i on censorship, hate speech, etc.

As an aside, Yes the "For" side ended up only being c.40% of the total registered voters. But sure, the against side ended up being c.20%. That analysis goes both ways.

It wasn't my point about percentages for and against, it was more aimed at the fact that not close to a majority voted on it for the above reasons. My thinking is what would the final result have been had all, or at least a much larger, percentage of voters, voted.

I don't know why i brought up the abortion issue for this example. Its a tentative link but i was watching a program on the subject earlier yesterday and its something i feel very strongly about (obviously against) so perhaps there was a better comparative topic and you're right, its done so perhaps best to leave it done as it'll only cause a conflict and disharmony as well as to distract from the topic we're currently discussing.

Mellor

Cass wrote: »

Not on this forum and as this thread is the Off Topic thread its designed specifically for all non shooting chat hence the back and forth between you and i on censorship, hate speech, etc.

I’m aware this is the off topic, are any subject is fair game. I just mean my the subject has been done to death on boards.ie and I’m personally not interested in discussing it. Not suggesting anybody else shouldn’t get discuss it here. Just meant it’s not for me.

tudderone

Silly Gilly wrote: »

LOL, Dave Cullen, Dolores Cahill and murdering babies in one post! What is it about shooting wildlife that attracts absolute right-wing headbangers?

The world is changing and leaving dinosaurs like you, Cass, behind. Get used to it.

Something, anything can change, does not mean its improving or getting better. I can throw a gallon of paint stripper over a brand new Merc, i've changed it, but not made it better.

Cass

Mellor wrote: »

I just mean my the subject has been done to death on boards.ie and I’m personally not interested in discussing it. .

About ten minutes after i posted, and had the computer turned off, i thought to myself it was a mistake to bring it up because its one of the most polarizing topics out there and frankly one i'm not interested in debating further either.

Feisar

Silly Gilly wrote: »

LOL, Dave Cullen, Dolores Cahill and murdering babies in one post! What is it about shooting wildlife that attracts absolute right-wing headbangers?

The world is changing and leaving dinosaurs like you, Cass, behind. Get used to it.

I do have to laugh, the other side is all about tiptoeing around people feelings, getting upset over very little, etc. One would think you would be more accommodating to another persons POV.

BattleCorp

I'm totally against deplatforming people, because that means that someone gets to choose the narrative. And who gets to do the choosing? Zuck, Twitface, Biden etc.? The tech companies are too powerful nowadays and need to be snipped.

I do realise there has to be some constraint and people can't be allowed to say anything they like (such as calling for the death of certain groups), but as far as saying stuff that might offend, rock on lads. I've no problem with anybody saying anything offensive to me because I'm an adult, and I'll get on with life eitherways.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

I do realise there has to be some constraint and people can't be allowed to say anything they like (such as calling for the death of certain groups),

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

............. but as far as saying stuff that might offend, rock on lads. I've no problem with anybody saying anything offensive to me because I'm an adult, and I'll get on with life eitherways.

Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

As Stephen Fry once said in relation to being offended:

' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that. ' Well, so ****ing what."

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

We haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation as of yet, but that's neither here nor there as 'I'm agin it' on principle.

Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

Fcuk em, that's what I say.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".

I can see judges throwing case after case out of court as it flys in the face of free speech and its definition in the western world, or at least they should.

Feisar

Cass wrote: »

That is already legislated for in the 1989 incitement to hatred act, but this proposal will ban ANY speech deemed offensive and not just that which calls for the infliction of harm on any ethic/social group, but anything deemed "unsavory".


Exactly, but in todays culture people are offended by more and more. I mean if everything that anyone found offensive were to banned there would be no communication, interaction or social aspect to being alive.

As Stephen Fry once said in relation to being offended:

Who's going to do the deeming though?

tudderone

Mutti Merkel taking Trumps side in the twitter ban row. Who knew ?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9134255/Germanys-Merkel-Trumps-Twitter-eviction-problematic.html


"France's finance minister Bruno Le Maire also voiced doubts about Trump's ban today, telling France Inter radio that it should not be for the 'digital oligarchy' to regulate itself.

Echoing Merkel's spokesman, Le Maire said that regulatory decisions should be taken by elected governments rather than by American corporate bosses".

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

We haven't seen the wording of the proposed legislation as of yet,

Nor will you until it is an Act, at which point its too late. The "you'll have to wait till its law before you know what is in it" line doesn't sit well with me.

However the reported content includes:

• Protection for any group deemed minority
• Ethic groups
• Harsher prison sentences
• Guilt by association (if you did not start the hate speech but joined in knowing it was hate speech you're guilty)
• Exemption for big tech platforms

According to all reports it'll be a case of trying to prove someone's frame of mind or intent (mentes reae).

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Nor will you until it is an Act, at which point its too late. The "you'll have to wait till its law before you know what is in it" line doesn't sit well with me.

However the reported content includes:

• Protection for any group deemed minority
• Ethic groups
• Harsher prison sentences
• Guilt by association (if you did not start the hate speech but joined in knowing it was hate speech you're guilty)
• Exemption for big tech platforms

According to all reports it'll be a case of trying to prove someone's frame of mind or intent (mentes reae).

Shooters are a minority

tudderone

We now have the highest covid infection rate in the world


https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/coronavirus-ireland-live-updates-new-19605241

Munsterlad102

tudderone wrote: »

I can see judges throwing case after case out of court as it flys in the face of free speech and its definition in the western world, or at least they should.

That's exactly whats going to happen. I read somewhere that there was only 5 convictions under the current act, so there must have been an incredibly high threshold to be met. Either that or these were in addition to other crimes, ie aggravating factors.

Not only is this clearly unconstitutional but goes against the European Declaration on Human Rights, so there could be cased in the Supreme Court and even in European Courts.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

We now have the highest covid infection rate in the world

Wow.

How are the numbers being recorded as they've stopped "broad" testing?

Grizzly 45

Mellor wrote: »

Prior to the election, Biden was a huge favourite. It’s hardly shocking that a favourite wins battleground states.
He would have been a bigger favourite if it wasn’t for delusional money on trump. People were still betting 100s of millions against Biden for weeks after the election. That’s insane.

Err No BELLWEATHER counties are counties that are used as predictors of how an election will go. Much different to battleground states. Now,you can debate are they as scientific as using a groundhog to predict when Spring will come on a certain day...But they have been accurate over the last century. Strange that Trump won all 17 of 18 of them.
Biden was a huge favourite with MSM...Same as Hillary was in 2016 and they were wrong on Hillary...Ask Dennis O Brien on his lost 6million in Hillarys war chest,as they were on their so-called "Blue wave " in Congress.Not one Republican was defeated. What people do with their money is hardly revelant to the whole discussion.if people want to bet thats their win or loss.

This is just more finger pointing in an attempt to deflect. Stupidity on one side doesn’t excuse stupidity on another. This is largely the problem with polarised politics. It’s worse than football fans.

It's pointing out the hypocrisy of the non-censure of statements of incitement to violence by Democratic senators ald the speaker of the house on violence on Social media.

Regardless of his convoluted it is, it doesn’t give him these powers. Can you point to any source that says it does?

Ok ..Unless you are a US constitutional lawyer, specialising in the electoral act, this point will be about as useful as two bald men arguing over a better brand of a hairbrush if we get into it. There is so much opinion both pro and anti-that point as to whether the VP has this power to rescind votes to the states that it will be a Thunder dome debate. One of the problems in this is the founders never discussed this in any detail as to this situation occuring,and as it has never occurred before this particular type of situation and the jury will be long out on whether the VP did thave the power or not to do this under the act.

The VP’s role comes from the constitution. Which previously you described as a very clear document in plain English. In simple terms it doesn’t give him these powers

.
As Above...Open to interpertation yes/no by much wiser legal heads than ours.

And as far as I know, the VP has never sent it back - open to correct on that, but should be well documented if it happened.

It has never happened until now,and there is no precedent for a situation forwhat has happened in the 20 election.

I don’t think either claims that. They are social media websites, and ultimately private companies.
No different to boards.ie and the fact they choose to disallow certain content.

Freedom of expression means I can write a book on the virtues of grave robbing and voodoo if I wished. But it doesn’t mean that I can walk into Harper Collins and demand they publish it.

But if Harper Collins is saying "We welcome all manuscripts as we believe in freedom of publishing all views irrespective, but will only publish total scripts on Incest and Satanismand or heavily censor any scripts on voodoo and grave robbing" Which is what FB is doing along with now pushing to be the only voice on social media thru its affiliate companies.

Of course, it’s a double standard. Almost every single opinion is bias. Personal or corporate.
CNN have double standards to the left.
Fox’s have double standards to the right.

Yes, happens when Ron Regan got rid of the truth in news and impartiality in the broadcasting act in the 1980s.

I personally try to be centrist. But that increasingly difficult to know the line

.
AGREE 100%

Nobody could be that idiotic.

NEVER underestimate the stupidity of people

If that were true, then the link to the video would be all over the net by now. Anyone could view it. He’d not escape a conviction.
And if it is true, should be trivial to link to his account.

Obviously gone now and the account suspended/closed.Unfortunately ,for him the there is face recognition and screen saving out there.

How would it?

The story was that the FSB/KGB had the hotel under surveillance.

As they always do. Even to the fact each and every room are wired for sound and movies I can tell you that from personal experience...Another chapter in the memoirs.
Trouble is; I wasn't that as an important target as the then VP's idiot son whose dad might one day be president, who ignored every known security briefing on being compromised and was negligent with his electronics.

It’s the exact same as the Hunter compromised scenario. IF they have that video, they would have used it to squeeze Trump.

Blackmail becomes useless when the blackmailed reaches a position od power to refute the blackmailer or turns the tables on them by saying EG "yeah I did it so what? Gimme a copy of the video, I'm actually quite kinky and I want it to show my missus,as she's into this as well..".
IOW it was useless once Trump became president, except to throw some dirt, that once the collusion with Russia tribunal fell flat on its face due to zero evidence worth mentioning.
Unfortunately for the Bidens, the problem is they have been accusing Trump of doing what they themselves have been doing for years, and there is a lot more there than a supposedly mucky video on them.
There are several and worse is now because of the PH acc affair, there is now "evidence" of his behaviour, along with him paying a stripper for child support with a kid he claimed wasn't his until a DNA test proved otherwise.

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

Wow.

How are the numbers being recorded as they've stopped "broad" testing?

I don't know to be honest, it must be the numbers of people actually testing positive for the lurgy. 5 people tested positive in my sisters office, yet still the managers won't allow working from home :rolleyes:. With willful obstinacy like that is it any surprise the thing is running amok ?

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Mutti Merkel taking Trumps side in the twitter ban row. Who knew ?


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9134255/Germanys-Merkel-Trumps-Twitter-eviction-problematic.html


"France's finance minister Bruno Le Maire also voiced doubts about Trump's ban today, telling France Inter radio that it should not be for the 'digital oligarchy' to regulate itself.

Echoing Merkel's spokesman, Le Maire said that regulatory decisions should be taken by elected governments rather than by American corporate bosses".

See even thr Gurnard[FGaurdian] came out against the FB oligarch as well.

Grizzly 45

I'd really like to know as to wHY;
We dont hear on how many people recover and leave hospitals in Ireland?
Why are we not told how many people are inoculated on a daily basis?
A bit of positive news from Doctor Death & Co every evening would be a morale booster...Somewhat.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

With willful obstinacy like that is it any surprise the thing is running amok ?

It was a genuine question because my young lad came home the other day saying how a chap in his work told the rest of them that he tested positive (yet was still turning up for work). He [young lad] and 30 others walked off site and called their GPs as the Government advert says to do for their covid consulation and to ask about testing.

They were all told to self isolate, but no tests would be given as they, and this is a direct quote " cannot keep up with the demand for testing so they are no longer offering it to people who show no symptoms".

So what are the guidelines now. If you are Asymptomatic do you give it a couple of days and return to work, or self isolate never knowing if you have it or not?

On one hand i understand the need to prioritize testing, but on the other the young lad and all the others will have two options:

1. Self isolate, possibly loosing their jobs as a result, and never know if they have/had it then return to work.
2. Don't isolate, and return to work to either be "immune" or risk catching it (at which point they may still be Asymptomatic or start to show symptoms).

IOW its the uncertainty of not knowing which makes the process of what to do a mockery.

BTW they were told a free test would not be provided but they can go and pay for a private test in about three to four weeks. So money aside it presents the same problems, and they must break lockdown to travel (through three counties) while being "Schrodinger's" patient.

tudderone

Aren't building sites and the like locked down ? There is one up the road from me and its locked. The builder must be taking a bath with that site, its been open 6 months and there is feck all done with the two lockdowns and the christmas break.

Seriously though i don't know where this is all going to end, its been a year nearly, the first european victim died on this day a year ago and the lockdowns and panic started not long after here. How difficult can it be to inject the populace ? I know the eu have not alloted us enough vaccine, so why do we have to dance to their tune anyway ? Can we as a country not buy more from the Uk or where ever and just get it done.

Its a waste of a year, hardly a shot fired by me or anyone else, work life knackered, home life stressful, plans gone by the wayside etc.

tudderone

Pelosi, (illegally) tries to make it impossible for trump to have access to the Nuclear launch codes, not only that she broadcasts it around the globe on Twatter so Iran etc know it :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWRtGEKrcRw