TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

[Ramblin Wreck 14,321]

19 minutes ago, squistion said:

Your link is from RedState, a conservative blog owned by Salem Media Group. Has any reputable news source verified this? Something doesn't ring right about this and if Michgan were trying to fix the election I doubt they would be so obvious about it as to dump 138k votes for Biden into the vote count and not have one for Trump.

Jeez can you guys knock it off with the reputable link nonsense?  If you don't like his link then go find your own link you like better.  But everyone knows you're in this thread just to antagonize.

[Widbil83 4,009]

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Come on, do you honestly believe this stuff? 

He said it out loud, of course I believe it.

How can any reasonable person look at the Democrats during the last 4 years and not see they are fully capable of this? 

[squistion 12,632]

1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

Let’s check impartial snopes

I will accept any legitimate fact checking organization or a link to any reputable news source that this news item is correct and I can't find that anywhere. Can you provide that?

Edited to add:

The mystery has been solved, it was a typo. Reported on Twitter that Decision Desk HQ, a website that tracks polls reported "153710" votes for Biden in Shiawassee County, when it SHOULD have been 15371. That accounts for the 138,339 vote dump for Biden. I can't find any links where Decision Desks acknowledges their error but that that explanation makes sense as Shiawassee County has only 53,837 registered voters.

Edited November 4, 2020 by squistion

[Lehigh98 1,059]

22 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Jeez can you guys knock it off with the reputable link nonsense?  If you don't like his link then go find your own link you like better.  But everyone knows you're in this thread just to antagonize.

C'mon guys, knock if off and leave them to their usual misinformation.

[Lehigh98 1,059]

3 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

There is going to be massive investigations into this for months, so we will see. We had the Democrat AG of Pennsylvania declaring Trump would never win the other day like he knew where a honeypot of “Biden ballots” was stored just in case his happened. 

Regardless this system is completely broken. It’s 2020 not ####### 1920, all ballots should be able to be counted on Election Day. 

Well, if somebody would have let us start early in PA we could have been done by now.

[HellToupee 15,759]

So far this election has taught us two things:

1) Don't trust the polls.

2) Don't trust Fox News.
https://twitter.com/wizard_predicts/status/1324048899938623488?s=21

 

[knowledge dropper 6,719]

Polls.  The real voter suppression. 
 

https://rumble.com/vaxrob-pollster-apologizes-to-america-admits-his-industry-is-finished.html

[HellToupee 15,759]

“Strong “ statement coming from Donald soon

[knowledge dropper 6,719]

 

Bringing in the big gun   

https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1324062078731231233?s=21

 

[HellToupee 15,759]

7 minutes ago, knowledge dropper said:

 

Bringing in the big gun   

https://twitter.com/rudygiuliani/status/1324062078731231233?s=21

 

He’s had enough  of the  

[Max Power 4,126]

1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

 

1) Don't trust the polls.

Fascinating how plenty of amateurs were able to point to the potential polling problems, but were told they were wrong by the experts. Then this is how it ends up.

[Widbil83 4,009]

ABC takes down AZ from Biden. Trump is winning this thing.

[Widbil83 4,009]

7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Fascinating how plenty of amateurs were able to point to the potential polling problems, but were told they were wrong by the experts. Then this is how it ends up.

I’ll go one step further and say the polling firms have been so corrupted in the Trump era by Democrats and the media that they are actually in place to suppress Republican/Trump votes. There really is no other explanation on how they could #### up this bad again. 

[General Malaise 27,539]

26 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

ABC takes down AZ from Biden. Trump is winning this thing.

You can get +270 right now from Sportsbook.ag   HIT IT LIKE IT OWES YOU MONEY!

[HellToupee 15,759]

1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

You can get +270 right now from Sportsbook.ag   HIT IT LIKE IT OWES YOU MONEY!

I know for a fact WB isn’t a degenerate. Yes we enjoy a wager of sport from time to time but not when it comes to serious business like this. You make it so unseemly 

[General Malaise 27,539]

5 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I know for a fact WB isn’t a degenerate. Yes we enjoy a wager of sport from time to time but not when it comes to serious business like this. You make it so unseemly 

Well.....I guess.  It just seems like if you were so sure of something happening in life - like the sun rising in the east or gravity to cause an object tossed in the air to fall to the ground - that you'd eagerly put money on that outcome if somebody were willing to give you $2.70 for every $1 you put up. 

 

[Craig_MiamiFL 2,618]

45 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

ABC takes down AZ from Biden. Trump is winning this thing.

No clue how this thing turns out here but there were a load of people outside in line at one of the voting locations here in PHX well after 8pm (closed at 7pm but if line by 7pm...you're allowed to vote). 

Saw a few claim was called early to get people out of line. The Biden lead trimmed by over half overnight I believe (was ~200k lead when I looked around midnight-ish local)

Edited November 4, 2020 by Craig_MiamiFL

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

4 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Jeez can you guys knock it off with the reputable link nonsense?  If you don't like his link then go find your own link you like better.  But everyone knows you're in this thread just to antagonize.

I mean, why would anybody want to use quality news sources? 

[Max Power 4,126]

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I mean, why would anybody want to use quality news sources? 

What some consider quality, others consider propaganda. Or just horrible at their profession. 

[Ramblin Wreck 14,321]

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I mean, why would anybody want to use quality news sources? 

You aren't the quality news source police.

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

What some consider quality, others consider propaganda. Or just horrible at their profession. 

As I posted a few times, I don't think its coincidence that several of the main people in here haven't shown up in the media threads that have tried to have discussion about quality sources.  I guess its more fun playing sides and pretending there are only 2 crappy options to get info from or something? 

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

11 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

You aren't the quality news source police.

That's what you think.   Sho deputized me this week.   

[Shutout 2,013]

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I mean, why would anybody want to use quality news sources? 

In all honesty, it is silly for either side to ask for a link because, to my knowledge, there is not one, let alone 5-6, sources that everyone would generally agree is fair and square down the middle and could reliably have a conversation or 4 and routinely use to back them up.  It's not like @Faust dropping a rotoworld link on us saying Patrick Mahomes has tweeted he is out due to covid. 

 

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

2 minutes ago, Shutout said:

In all honesty, it is silly for either side to ask for a link because, to my knowledge, there is not one, let alone 5-6, sources that everyone would generally agree is fair and square down the middle and could reliably have a conversation or 4 and routinely use to back them up.  It's not like @Faust dropping a rotoworld link on us saying Patrick Mahomes has tweeted he is out due to covid. 

 

I think for the most part people don't have issues with most of the sources in the top of the media bias chart that has been floated around in these threads.  NPR, BBC, Rueters, etc..   

But, you wouldn't know it because it basically just starts breaking down to "...but Fox", or "....but CNN" as though there are only a couple places that people can receive info.   I honestly don't get it.   Ok, I guess I do - I just strongly disagree with it.  

[Ilov80s 31,018]

27 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think for the most part people don't have issues with most of the sources in the top of the media bias chart that has been floated around in these threads.  NPR, BBC, Rueters, etc..   

But, you wouldn't know it because it basically just starts breaking down to "...but Fox", or "....but CNN" as though there are only a couple places that people can receive info.   I honestly don't get it.   Ok, I guess I do - I just strongly disagree with it.  

I think I've seen from Twitter and here that Fox News is no longer a trusted source for Trump supporters either. I've seen that a few times. 

[dkp993 7,388]

46 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Patrick Mahomes has tweeted he is out due to covid. 

 

What!!!!

 

*checks his lineup and rotoworld site and breaths a deep sigh of relief 

Edited November 5, 2020 by dkp993

[Shutout 2,013]

36 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think for the most part people don't have issues with most of the sources in the top of the media bias chart that has been floated around in these threads.  NPR, BBC, Rueters, etc..   

But, you wouldn't know it because it basically just starts breaking down to "...but Fox", or "....but CNN" as though there are only a couple places that people can receive info.   I honestly don't get it.   Ok, I guess I do - I just strongly disagree with it.  

If you are interested, check out Media Research Center and dive in there and you can see some pretty compelling numbers for various media outlets and how much they lean one way or another. One of the things that makes it hard to have these discussions in this ways is because there are so few conservative leaning media networks that it always seems to come back to "Fox" and that in itself is a problem because it paints a HUGE target on their back because they are so dominating in ratings and there is very little other places to go to collaborate or support. And if the other side says "CNN" then you have this issue that "well, It's CNN" and, for lack of a different way of saying it, there is a strong sense that they have absolutely morally bankrupted themselves during this administration. SO you basically have two sides that have issues with "their" side as much as the opposing side...so where's the credible info to come from?

It may not matter in the grand scheme of things but its just something to posit a different perspective. 

[Shutout 2,013]

1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

What!!!!

 

*checks his lineup and rotoworld site and breaths a deep sigh of relief 

Sorry.  example there.  Didn't mean to cause any of your guy's future championship teams a heart attack. 

[BassNBrew 11,515]

12 minutes ago, Shutout said:

 

14 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

What!!!!

 

*checks his lineup and rotoworld site and breaths a deep sigh of relief 

Sorry.  example there.  Didn't mean to cause any of your guy's future championship teams a heart attack. 

 

Totally uncool on a FF site.

[JAA 2,814]

1 hour ago, Shutout said:

If you are interested, check out Media Research Center and dive in there and you can see some pretty compelling numbers for various media outlets and how much they lean one way or another. One of the things that makes it hard to have these discussions in this ways is because there are so few conservative leaning media networks that it always seems to come back to "Fox" and that in itself is a problem because it paints a HUGE target on their back because they are so dominating in ratings and there is very little other places to go to collaborate or support. And if the other side says "CNN" then you have this issue that "well, It's CNN" and, for lack of a different way of saying it, there is a strong sense that they have absolutely morally bankrupted themselves during this administration. SO you basically have two sides that have issues with "their" side as much as the opposing side...so where's the credible info to come from?

It may not matter in the grand scheme of things but its just something to posit a different perspective. 

I like mediabiasfactcheck.com

[Zow 8,755]

2 hours ago, Shutout said:

Sorry.  example there.  Didn't mean to cause any of your guy's future championship teams a heart attack. 

Yeah that was awful. 

[FBG Moderator 761]

1 hour ago, Prinefan said:

Awful quiet in here.  

Troll less if you come back.

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

On 11/4/2020 at 6:24 PM, Shutout said:

If you are interested, check out Media Research Center and dive in there and you can see some pretty compelling numbers for various media outlets and how much they lean one way or another. One of the things that makes it hard to have these discussions in this ways is because there are so few conservative leaning media networks that it always seems to come back to "Fox" and that in itself is a problem because it paints a HUGE target on their back because they are so dominating in ratings and there is very little other places to go to collaborate or support. And if the other side says "CNN" then you have this issue that "well, It's CNN" and, for lack of a different way of saying it, there is a strong sense that they have absolutely morally bankrupted themselves during this administration. SO you basically have two sides that have issues with "their" side as much as the opposing side...so where's the credible info to come from?

It may not matter in the grand scheme of things but its just something to posit a different perspective. 

I appreciate the back and forth and have been thinking about this post for a couple days.   The lean is not what I pushing back against.  I honestly don't care if an outlet leans one way or the other.  IMO the piece that is being most lost in the shuffle is how good are they at reporting facts and info.  They can lean right or left or not at all, but what is a big issue with discourse is that we are at a point where we can't seem to agree on what good reporting and what isn't.   

I know I keep referring to it, but it's what I am most familiar with, but it's THIS chart, and I also have looked a bit at the site that JAA suggested, and they aren't far off from each other.  (yes, I did start poking around in the site that you suggested, but I am not familiar enough with it to comment too much on it).     So, I think the biggest disconnect in this back and forth and "source policing" is the sources that aren't even in that reliable news zone.   There is also a disconnect between people flipping on CNN or Fox TV and them using the web versions of those outlets.   We can discuss if people have a huge beef with how that chart collects data and grades out their sites, but if we mostly agree they aren't way far out with their assessments, neither TV version should be trusted for news (I am sure due to the large % of opinion shows on both channels and lack of fact checking push back), but for the web versions CNN dipped back up into the green zone of fact reporting, but Fox is still in the mixed reliability and dipping into that orange zone.    Again, if we like that chart, even the CNN vs. Fox links carry a different weight.   

This is where I am coming from, and I have said multiple times that we would be better off if we tried to stay in that green zone.    There are right leaning sources in that zone, but where main problem becomes is that the main sites that are being used and sourced around here are in that orange zone, and that's what should be fixed.   If that chart is to be trusted (and it's been brought up several times, and I have yet to see a big push back as to why it's not a decent source to go by), I have yet to see anybody that that using an equivalent source of info like Fox TV around here.   Maybe I missed the references to Daily Kos and Occupy Democrats though.  If so, they can't have near the viewership of Fox News, and that is a huge problem.  

 

[JAA 2,814]

16 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

On 11/4/2020 at 7:24 PM, Shutout said:

If you are interested, check out Media Research Center and dive in there and you can see some pretty compelling numbers for various media outlets and how much they lean one way or another. One of the things that makes it hard to have these discussions in this ways is because there are so few conservative leaning media networks that it always seems to come back to "Fox" and that in itself is a problem because it paints a HUGE target on their back because they are so dominating in ratings and there is very little other places to go to collaborate or support. And if the other side says "CNN" then you have this issue that "well, It's CNN" and, for lack of a different way of saying it, there is a strong sense that they have absolutely morally bankrupted themselves during this administration. SO you basically have two sides that have issues with "their" side as much as the opposing side...so where's the credible info to come from?

It may not matter in the grand scheme of things but its just something to posit a different perspective. 

I appreciate the back and forth and have been thinking about this post for a couple days.   The lean is not what I pushing back against.  I honestly don't care if an outlet leans one way or the other.  IMO the piece that is being most lost in the shuffle is how good are they at reporting facts and info.  They can lean right or left or not at all, but what is a big issue with discourse is that we are at a point where we can't seem to agree on what good reporting and what isn't.   

I know I keep referring to it, but it's what I am most familiar with, but it's THIS chart, and I also have looked a bit at the site that JAA suggested, and they aren't far off from each other.  (yes, I did start poking around in the site that you suggested, but I am not familiar enough with it to comment too much on it).     So, I think the biggest disconnect in this back and forth and "source policing" is the sources that aren't even in that reliable news zone.   There is also a disconnect between people flipping on CNN or Fox TV and them using the web versions of those outlets.   We can discuss if people have a huge beef with how that chart collects data and grades out their sites, but if we mostly agree they aren't way far out with their assessments, neither TV version should be trusted for news (I am sure due to the large % of opinion shows on both channels and lack of fact checking push back), but for the web versions CNN dipped back up into the green zone of fact reporting, but Fox is still in the mixed reliability and dipping into that orange zone.    Again, if we like that chart, even the CNN vs. Fox links carry a different weight.   

This is where I am coming from, and I have said multiple times that we would be better off if we tried to stay in that green zone.    There are right leaning sources in that zone, but where main problem becomes is that the main sites that are being used and sourced around here are in that orange zone, and that's what should be fixed.   If that chart is to be trusted (and it's been brought up several times, and I have yet to see a big push back as to why it's not a decent source to go by), I have yet to see anybody that that using an equivalent source of info like Fox TV around here.   Maybe I missed the references to Daily Kos and Occupy Democrats though.  If so, they can't have near the viewership of Fox News, and that is a huge problem.  

The chart you provided is not agreed upon by conservatives.  For conservatives, this is the chart they believe (someone correct me if Im wrong):  https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/06/democrats-see-most-news-outlets-as-unbiased-republicans-think-theyre-almost-all-biased/

Specific chart (on right):  https://www.niemanlab.org/images/Screen-Shot-2018-06-22-at-7.16.02-AM.png

Edited November 6, 2020 by JAA

[KarmaPolice 18,083]

56 minutes ago, JAA said:

The chart you provided is not agreed upon by conservatives.  For conservatives, this is the chart they believe (someone correct me if Im wrong):  https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/06/democrats-see-most-news-outlets-as-unbiased-republicans-think-theyre-almost-all-biased/

Specific chart (on right):  https://www.niemanlab.org/images/Screen-Shot-2018-06-22-at-7.16.02-AM.png

I could see that, but we need to be able to figure out if it's just what we believe and what is accurate.  

I don't remember there being huge differences in our 2 preferred sources/charts, but I could be wrong, and both are fairly open with how they got their results and what their methods are.  I like how the site you posted also gives examples of what got flaaged and the type of language sources are using.  Pretty informative on that front.  

I am up for a discussion if there are big errors in their methods or why something they list in their green or fact reporting zone shouldn't be in there.  

[Alex P Keaton 4,285]

On 11/4/2020 at 6:09 PM, Max Power said:

What some consider quality, others consider propaganda. Or just horrible at their profession. 

True.  I see Russia Times as propaganda.  Since it is, you know, controlled by Putin.

[Roy L Fewks 360]

I just wanted to say: I was a passionate Trump devotee for most of his term. He could do no wrong as far as I was concerned. Even when he was wrong, it was for the right reasons, and I still feel like the media unfairly distorted a lot of the things that he said.

But my faith began to waver back in March, and it never came back. I still could not bring myself to vote for Biden, but I gotta admit that the feeling that I am experiencing right now is one of relief.

It's over.

[Max Power 4,126]

I think this thing is going to drag on for an little bit. It's worth it for the sake of election integrity and hopefully we make some changes for 2024. 

It doesn't look good for Trump, but it's not over. 

[JAA 2,814]

4 hours ago, Roy L Fewks said:

I just wanted to say: I was a passionate Trump devotee for most of his term. He could do no wrong as far as I was concerned. Even when he was wrong, it was for the right reasons, and I still feel like the media unfairly distorted a lot of the things that he said.

But my faith began to waver back in March, and it never came back. I still could not bring myself to vote for Biden, but I gotta admit that the feeling that I am experiencing right now is one of relief.

It's over.

Biden is a poor candidate

[dkp993 7,388]

8 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I think this thing is going to drag on for an little bit. It's worth it for the sake of election integrity and hopefully we make some changes for 2024. 

It doesn't look good for Trump, but it's not over. 

I think it’s time to start the Yang 2024 HQ - The Future

[Max Power 4,126]

The Hammer/scorecard claim is an interesting one and sounds easy to verify if true or not. 

[timschochet 35,006]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

The Hammer/scorecard claim is an interesting one and sounds easy to verify if true or not. 

Do you really believe that any of these claims will be enough to change the results of the election? 

[Max Power 4,126]

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Do you really believe that any of these claims will be enough to change the results of the election? 

You never know, but they are worth looking into for the sake of election integrity. 

It's a pretty damning claim that should be looked into and put to bed one way or the other. 

I'm in favor of a good audit of the voting system. 

[Snorkelson 4,376]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Do you really believe that any of these claims will be enough to change the results of the election? 

Is it enough to provide cover for state state legislature to decide they can’t certify a winner and decide to assign their electoral votes? This is the only play at this point and one I think they are trying. It’s easy for some republicans to say the right things yesterday/today, and after a couple days decide this might work and get on the bandwagon like Jim Jordan.

[Ramblin Wreck 14,321]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Do you really believe that any of these claims will be enough to change the results of the election? 

No.  Did you believe all the waste on Russia was going to overturn an election?

[Doug B 7,101]

1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

Is it enough to provide cover for state state legislature to decide they can’t certify a winner and decide to assign their electoral votes? This is the only play at this point and one I think they are trying.

I’m comfortable saying this strategy will not work. Looks like every suit filed so far is getting summarily dismissed by state-level judges.

[Gr00vus 11,999]

1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

Is it enough to provide cover for state state legislature to decide they can’t certify a winner and decide to assign their electoral votes? This is the only play at this point and one I think they are trying. It’s easy for some republicans to say the right things yesterday/today, and after a couple days decide this might work and get on the bandwagon like Jim Jordan.

I thought I saw something about PA law doesn't allow the state legislature to choose electors, they have to be assigned as voted, even after adjustments due to correction/litigation.

[pantherclub 2,051]

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

The Hammer/scorecard claim is an interesting one and sounds easy to verify if true or not. 

Question.  Do you believe that Biden won without fraud?

[Max Power 4,126]

22 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Question.  Do you believe that Biden won without fraud?

I don't think the extent of the fraud has been revealed yet. Unknown at this point. 

[pantherclub 2,051]

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I don't think the extent of the fraud has been revealed yet. Unknown at this point. 

What does your gut tell you?