2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Leroy42 · 13-09-2020 08:34PM

Danzy wrote: »

Lol.

Extrajudicial killing.

Really embellish it.

What part?

Overheal · 13-09-2020 08:53PM

Considering some of these are stated agenda of this president, why has McConnel killed these bills that have passed the House and wait on his desk?

https://twitter.com/repadamschiff/status/1305188702717607944?s=21

Kidchameleon · 13-09-2020 09:42PM

Could there be foreign meddling in the democrats campaign???

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-data-shows-that-half-of-2019-donations-to-actblue-came-from-untraceable-unemployed-donors

Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors

A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement

******

Trump slams Democrat fundraising platform ActBlue after it was revealed $346M in donations came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors and asks 'money laundering anyone?'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726765/Trump-slams-Democrat-fundraising-platform-ActBlue-untraceable-unemployed-donors.html

Overheal · 13-09-2020 09:50PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Could there be foreign meddling in the democrats campaign???

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-data-shows-that-half-of-2019-donations-to-actblue-came-from-untraceable-unemployed-donors

Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors

A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement

******

Trump slams Democrat fundraising platform ActBlue after it was revealed $346M in donations came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors and asks 'money laundering anyone?'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726765/Trump-slams-Democrat-fundraising-platform-ActBlue-untraceable-unemployed-donors.html

So he is suspicious that people who have lost their jobs under Trumps time in office are investing in Democrats?

Almost 40M unemployed this year. If they all donated $10...

LessOutragePlz · 13-09-2020 09:54PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Could there be foreign meddling in the democrats campaign???

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-data-shows-that-half-of-2019-donations-to-actblue-came-from-untraceable-unemployed-donors

Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors

A Take Back Action Fund analysis of $400M in donations to liberal causes raises red flags of possible foreign involvement

******

Trump slams Democrat fundraising platform ActBlue after it was revealed $346M in donations came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors and asks 'money laundering anyone?'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726765/Trump-slams-Democrat-fundraising-platform-ActBlue-untraceable-unemployed-donors.html

It's also very interesting that when you go to the BLM page and hit donate you're taken to the actblue website, easy to see why Democrats have been very vocal in the their support for BLM.

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2020 09:58PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It's also very interesting that when you go to the BLM page and hit donate you're taken to the actblue website, easy to see why Democrats have been very vocal in the their support for BLM.

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019

not that interesting. ActBlue is just a technology platform. It is basically gofundme for those lefty liberal types you despise so much.

LessOutragePlz · 13-09-2020 10:03PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not that interesting. ActBlue is just a technology platform. It is basically gofundme for those lefty liberal types you despise so much.

Nice try, but their website clearly states that they only accept donations for Democratic candidates

"That’s why we’ve built a powerful online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot"

https://secure.actblue.com/about

Can you show me any Republican candidates that you can donate to using actblue?

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2020 10:04PM

Overheal wrote: »

So he is suspicious that people who have lost their jobs under Trumps time in office are investing in Democrats?

Almost 40M unemployed this year. If they all donated $10...

it is more likely that people are not recording their employer when they donate. ActBlue gives the name of all donors to the federal government.

Is it possible to get a similar list of all donors to republican party?

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2020 10:04PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nice try, but their website clearly states that they only accept donations for Democratic candidates

"That’s why we’ve built a powerful online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot"

https://secure.actblue.com/about

Can you show me any Republican candidates that you can donate to using actblue?

the republicans have their own platform.

LessOutragePlz · 13-09-2020 10:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the republicans have their own platform.

But they don't have a platform that funnels BLM donations to their presidential candidate and other Democratic candidates.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2020 10:08PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But they don't have a platform that funnels BLM donations to their presidential candidate and other Democratic candidates.

what makes you think that the donations on that BLM page go to anything other than BLM?

the page seems quite clear

Your contribution will benefit Black Lives Matter Support Fund at Tides Foundation.

lawred2 · 13-09-2020 10:17PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I didn't treat them as credible I merely stated that I've checked their posts for news.

Why would you check sources you don't consider credible?

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 08:24AM

lawred2 wrote: »

Why would you check sources you don't consider credible?

Because sometimes on rare occasions they post something that is newsworthy such as the previous example that I have posted.

Their not credible 99% of the time but on rare occasions they post something that is credible and newsworthy which is why I sometimes browse their posts.

duploelabs · 14-09-2020 08:33AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Because sometimes on rare occasions they post something that is newsworthy such as the previous example that I have posted.

Their not credible 99% of the time but on rare occasions they post something that is credible and newsworthy which is why I sometimes browse their posts.

But its not newsworthy as its shown to be incorrect and untrue in various places as shown by a previous poster.

We've talked about cognitive bias before

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 08:48AM

duploelabs wrote: »

But its not newsworthy as its shown to be incorrect and untrue in various places as shown by a previous poster.

We've talked about cognitive bias before

He didn't show that any of the charges were incorrect or true merely that the person's political affiliation was incorrect he also only listed 4 people when there was well over 50 people on those lists.

One or two discrepancies doesn't make the rest of the information posted untrue or not newsworthy if they are all proven to true and accurate now does it?

Feel free to go through the list and point out the inaccuracies and false stories if there are any false stories.

Then come back to me and talk about cognitive bias.

duploelabs · 14-09-2020 09:08AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He didn't show that any of the charges were incorrect or true merely that the person's political affiliation was incorrect he also only listed 4 people when there was well over 50 people on those lists.

One or two discrepancies doesn't make the rest of the information posted untrue or not newsworthy if they are all proven to true and accurate now does it?

Feel free to go through the list and point out the inaccuracies and false stories if there are any false stories.

Then come back to me and talk about cognitive bias.

Those inaccuracies have already been shown to you, stop being obtuse

Igotadose · 14-09-2020 09:17AM

Overheal wrote: »

So he is suspicious that people who have lost their jobs under Trumps time in office are investing in Democrats?

Almost 40M unemployed this year. If they all donated $10...

So, this is this week's distraction thread from the fact they're lagging the fundraising race. $210mn in August (vs. $354mn for the Democratic party.) https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/911191349/trump-republicans-raise-210-million-in-august-far-behind-democrats-haul

TBF - $210mn would've been a record. Pretty interesting to me so much money's coming in, lots of interest in the last month.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2020 09:17AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He didn't show that any of the charges were incorrect or true merely that the person's political affiliation was incorrect he also only listed 4 people when there was well over 50 people on those lists.

One or two discrepancies doesn't make the rest of the information posted untrue or not newsworthy if they are all proven to true and accurate now does it?

Feel free to go through the list and point out the inaccuracies and false stories if there are any false stories.

Then come back to me and talk about cognitive bias.

have you done that? did you know that the 4 already pointed out were incorrect? Or did you just assume it was all correct?

Leroy42 · 14-09-2020 09:34AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Because sometimes on rare occasions they post something that is newsworthy such as the previous example that I have posted.

Their not credible 99% of the time but on rare occasions they post something that is credible and newsworthy which is why I sometimes browse their posts.

Just so I understand you.

You ignore MSM because you believe it not credible, but on this occasion, you are willing to run with this story despite acknowledging that they are not credible.

So is it that you judge each story on its merits or that the credibility of the organisation has a bearing on your view on it?

Becasue I don't understand why you would avoid MSM on that basis

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 09:38AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

have you done that? did you know that the 4 already pointed out were incorrect? Or did you just assume it was all correct?

Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.

Leroy42 · 14-09-2020 09:41AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.

So it has been pointed out to you that there are clear factual inaccuracies in the list yet you stand over the accuracy of the entire list?

If the political dimensions don't seem to matter, since some aren't politicians and others are mislabeled, what is the point you are trying to make with the list?

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 09:43AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just so I understand you.

You ignore MSM because you believe it not credible, but on this occasion, you are willing to run with this story despite acknowledging that they are not credible.

So is it that you judge each story on its merits or that the credibility of the organisation has a bearing on your view on it?

Becasue I don't understand why you would avoid MSM on that basis

They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2020 09:44AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.

not very reliable if they dont even get the persons political affiliations correct. there is no "may or may not". they have definitely got some wrong. yet you still stand over it. thats the cognitive bias that everybody keeps mentioning to you.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2020 09:45AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?

duploelabs · 14-09-2020 09:46AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?

It's no sex panther

Leroy42 · 14-09-2020 09:46AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

My point is that you have stated before that you don't listen/read the likes of CNN because of their bias.

Yet here you are pushing a piece from a, your own admission, not a credible source because you happen to believe the particular story.

Whilst I agree with your approach to this story, as in just because the source is not generally credible doesn't mean that the story is false, but why do you not use the same approach across the MSM?

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 09:46AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So it has been pointed out to you that there are clear factual inaccuracies in the list yet you stand over the accuracy of the entire list?

If the political dimensions don't seem to matter, since some aren't politicians and others are mislabeled, what is the point you are trying to make with the list?

There are no factual inaccuracies in the crimes that they have been charged with or convicted of feel free to point me to any inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that they were charged with or onvicted of.

I was pointing out that they post credible and newsworthy stories on rare occasions nothing more and nothing less.

LessOutragePlz · 14-09-2020 09:49AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?

Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.

ohnonotgmail · 14-09-2020 09:52AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.

do you think that MSM posts credible stories less than 1% of the time?

Professor Moriarty · 14-09-2020 09:52AM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.

What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Comments