Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

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

1241242244246247331

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,105 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Danzy wrote: »
    Lol.

    Extrajudicial killing.

    Really embellish it.

    What part?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,785 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,782 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,105 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,105 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,020 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


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

    It's no sex panther


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,105 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,977 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    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?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement