Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2020 Election General***


hagmania

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

No.

Are you saying Twitter is unbiased or applies their "fact checking" in an unbiased way?

 

11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

The head of Twitter has admitted it in testimony before Congress. You don't get to play the "baseless allegations by Trump supporters" card on this one, sorry.

NB...these are the posts which started the whole link and spoonfed argument.  After the first I said I was unaware of such a proven thing and that it was baseless claims by conservatives...your reply was that the head of twitter testified to this.   I then asked you for linkes.

Now...what was provided...was a link about they should not have censored or removed the stuff about Hunter Biden.  That is not proving what you claimed here...in fact...he seems to have said the opposite in his testimony.

A link

And another about bias...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54698186

Reminds me of moderation here...people complain...people accuse Joe and his moderators of being biased against conservatives...as with the article and "big tech", it seems such complaints are quite unfounded.  There are also several studies and stories out there going over and debunking the claims of shadow banning conservatives.

So I stand by my post that they are baseless complaints about overall bias and censorship.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The request was not in bad faith.  That is the first mistake...assuming something is in bad faith.

What was provided was not proof of what you claimed at all though...that is also dirty pool.  Making an assertion...providing a link (or relying on someone else to do so) that says something different...then acting as if you proved your point and its the other person's fault.

I believe they have some biases...I don't believe its as bad as everyone says at all.  I believe things should be fact checked and sites/platforms are doing so as they don't want misinformation spread around their media.  And like it or not...Trump and his supporters/surrogates have been quite guilty of spreading complete lies more so than any other group like it ever.  I don't think that is a controversial stance to take.  It is one of the things he uses most to push an agenda and gets people to push it for him and think he is spreading some truth.

History says otherwise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rockaction said:

Really is testing the guard rails. What's really going to test it is whether we will have a true peaceful transfer of power after all avenues to challenges have been exhausted. Because he's using those. And he's not following punctilio, up to and including the inauguration. He's just not.

So let's just follow the dates and make sure 2+2=4 and all the I's are dotted and T's crossed.

The fact that the Wayne County thing even happened for a minute should give everyone pause. 

Is our system so complicated that our elections can really be changed / held up / compromised because of a person's opinion? In this case, 2 republicans that said "nah" to certifying a county's results? Even though it quickly got rectified, this type of thing worries me.

Edited by jwb
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An article about some myths like shadow banning

And another

Seems things took hold due to the Vice article...got spread (as some misinformation does) and became truth to people because it was repeated enough.  Seems what Trump has done often...repeat something enough, get enough other people saying it...that it becomes truth no matter what the facts really are.  Its why this push against the integrity of the election and our process is so dangerous.  He is seeding doubt in all levels here with some people...with zero factual evidence to back him up.  And saying it enough that millions seemingly believe it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

 

27 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion.  That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded.  For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me.  That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way.  As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.

Basically, "Conservatives post untrue things at a far ratio than others" could easily explain the bolded, without Twitter being biased at all.

I mean, I guess it's POSSIBLE to believe conservatives are shadow banning themselves, suspending themselves, and locking their own accounts and just lying about it.

It doesn’t seem like your response is to what Rich Conway stated.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
38 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion.  That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded.  For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me.  That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way.  As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.

Basically, "Conservatives post untrue things at a far ratio than others" could easily explain the bolded, without Twitter being biased at all.

I mean, I guess it's POSSIBLE to believe conservatives are shadow banning themselves, suspending themselves, and locking their own accounts and just lying about it.

This response is a complete non-sequitur.  Go back to the example I gave.  Donald Trump frequently posts things on Twitter that are untrue.  I have never posted something untrue (again, total of 5 tweets, but still).  Twitter fact checks Donald Trump frequently.  Are they fact checking him more than me because they are biased in favor of me, or because he posts untrue things?

If conservatives post untrue things more frequently than others, it should be expected that Twitter fact checks conservatives most frequently, and it would NOT be an indication of bias in any way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys it's pointless to try to convince Trump supporters of anything other than the entire world is aligned and coordinated against them and Trump.  Big tech, big academia, the deep state, hollywood, george soros, etc all aligned against Trump and his supporters.

These are their beliefs, and they're entitled to them, but trying to change minds is pointless.

Edited by James Daulton
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yup.   To be fair to platforms like FB - I am not sure it was on their radar that a majority of us would start using them for our news sources.   That was just supposed to be for us to see what people we dated in college and HS look like today, not for hard hitting truth about COVID and election procedures.  

I mean at a certain point Facebook made the conscious choice to allow users to promote (whatever the right terminology is) stories and sold ads.  It's not like they went down this path blindly.  Their entire business MO is to maximize the time users spend on the platform.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

Guys it's pointless to try to convince Trump supporters of anything other than the entire world is aligned and coordinated against them and Trump.  Big tech, big academia, the deep state, hollywood, george soros, etc all aligned against Trump and his supporters.

These are their beliefs, and they're entitled to them, but trying to change minds is pointless.

Yup.

I've started just rolling with it; telling them its better to be on the winning side and asking them if they really thought they stood a chance against ALL those powerful forces aligned against them.  They don't know quite how to respond.  I then usually go a little further and start talking about how I felt the sting of the Secret Society aligned against Obama : The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothchilds and Col. Sanders and how they were putting chemicals in the Cols chicken.  It's at that point THEY start to walk away from me; as I reflect back to them how conspiracy theories sound.  

Edited by Thunderlips
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Conservatives get de-platformed, suspended,  shadow banned  and "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than others. It's why there was even a demand for Parler to begin with.

The part in red, I'm comfortable granting. However, I won't agree that those actions are inherently unfair against any and all conservatives. What certain conservatives say/tweet is what tips the scales.

It appears that conservatives on Twitter such as Michael Gerson and George Will, for instance, don't get suspended or fact-checked. Expressions of philosophical conservatism are apparently allowed freely on Twitter. Expressions railing against the worst excesses of the left wing are also apparently allowed.

What appears to be getting shut down on Twitter, then, is not broad conservatism -- but instead, attempts to exploit Twitter's reach by lying and propagandizing.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wayne County thing is fascinating. The 2 Republican board members looked horrible. In a very diverse county, they pretty much were exposed as openly racist. The one guy has FB posts calling Obama a Muslim President and complaining about Muslims moving to his town. He told the people on Zoom for the public virtual meeting that he wouldn’t call on them if he couldn’t pronounce their names. Then despite that other mostly white cities had a bigger discrepancy and these discrepancies are normal, the only city they had issue with was Detroit. The snakes are being fully exposed. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Who's going to tell him?

I thought it was going to be you. 

This exchange suggests to me that there are many things in the right-wing info-sphere that are simply "known to be true" and can be dropped in to discussions without support so long as it's right-wing folks speaking among themselves.

I guess that's not particularly surprising, and I would agree that there are similar things in the left-wing info-sphere.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Doug B said:

It appears that conservatives on Twitter such as Michael Gerson and George Will, for instance, don't get suspended or fact-checked. Expressions of philosophical conservatism are apparently allowed freely on Twitter. Expressions railing against the worst excesses of the left wing are also apparently allowed.

What appears to be getting shut down on Twitter, then, is not broad conservatism -- but instead, attempts to exploit Twitter's reach by lying and propagandizing.

Yeah ... looking into this a little deeper, even a conservative commentator as inflammatory as Cal Thomas doesn't seem to ever get his Twitter account suspended or get his tweets fact-checked or anything like that.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doug B said:

This exchange suggests to me that there are many things in the right-wing info-sphere that are simply "known to be true" and can be dropped in to discussions without support so long as it's right-wing folks speaking among themselves.

I guess that's not particularly surprising, and I would agree that there are similar things in the left-wing info-sphere.

I’ve heard of the leaked debate questions and super delegates. It’s no surprise the Democratic Party wanted Hillary. She’s been a party stalwart and Bernie was an outsider trying to use the Party for his own political gain. Just like the GOP didn’t want Trump in 2016. However, as far as I’m aware Hillary won the actual primary voting by a significant margin. I’m not sure what the fraud there was though I didn’t pay the closest attention as I was locked into voting Kasich in the Michigan primary as I kind of liked him and was really hoping he had a chance to stop Trump’s momentum. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dkp993 said:

NB- in my experience you’re a reasonable dude. So with that said.... What fraud?
 

I think nobody is OK with fraud, at least that I’ve seen. But there has yet been any credible evidence of fraud.  And this “well let’s let it play out” narrative while someone flings #### against the wall is disingenuous at best. If this truly is about a fair and safe election why is fraud not being investigated in other areas where dominion is used?   

There has definitely been fraud.  Enough to overturn an election?  Major fraud in PA or a swing state?  That certainly hasn't been proven yet and the public doesn't have any evidence of this, though Trump's team is teasing the right that the evidence is coming.  

The left and right don't want to know each other's perspectives, so they sit on opposite sides.  The right claims that millions of fraudulent votes happened.  The left claims there is no credible evidence of fraud, despite that being an absolute lie.

Meanwhile, the truth is in the middle.  There was fraud, of course.  But enough to overturn an election?  Enough to flip the states that at this point have Biden as the leader?  That's highly improbable and I see no reason to think that happened.  But Trump has a few more weeks in which his team can try to prove it.  Thus far it appears they are just regurgitating the most extreme internet conspiracies and hoping something sticks.  As long as that keeps up, their support will begin to slowly ebb.  Already, I've noticed many on the right growing tired of the "the bomb is coming", "release the kraken" stuff that the right is promising.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doug B said:

This exchange suggests to me that there are many things in the right-wing info-sphere that are simply "known to be true" and can be dropped in to discussions without support so long as it's right-wing folks speaking among themselves.

I guess that's not particularly surprising, and I would agree that there are similar things in the left-wing info-sphere.

I do think this is a significant reason why people that primarily consume right wing media find it frustrating to post here.  Posters need to be conscious of their audience and adjust posts accordingly.  We can't have a very productive discussion if you assume that everyone agrees with you about things where the overwhelming majority of posters disagree with you.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Well they're not exclusive but Twitter is definitely biased against conservatives. 

Conservatives get de-platformed, suspended,  shadow banned  and "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than others. It's why there was even a demand for Parler to begin with.

Are Conservatives posting comments that are needed to be "fact checked" at a higher number than others?  

Between Trump and Biden....which candidate do you feel posts more comments that should be "fact checked"?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:
1 hour ago, Doug B said:

It appears that conservatives on Twitter such as Michael Gerson and George Will, for instance, don't get suspended or fact-checked. Expressions of philosophical conservatism are apparently allowed freely on Twitter. Expressions railing against the worst excesses of the left wing are also apparently allowed.

What appears to be getting shut down on Twitter, then, is not broad conservatism -- but instead, attempts to exploit Twitter's reach by lying and propagandizing.

Yeah ... looking into this a little deeper, even a conservative commentator as inflammatory as Cal Thomas doesn't seem to ever get his Twitter account suspended or get his tweets fact-checked or anything like that.

Heck, looking into this still deeper ... Ted Nugent doesn't even get suspended or fact-checked. I thing Nugent is at least somewhat conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

Are Conservatives posting comments that are needed to be "fact checked" at a higher number than others?  

Between Trump and Biden....which candidate do you feel posts more comments that should be "fact checked"?

Twitter really hamstrung the propaganda machine for Trump.  The PRIVATE company made a decision that they would not be used as an influencer on elections by vetting the material that is tweeted out as being factual or non-factual.  A good decision in my opinion.

Trump wasn't able to get the Hunter Biden BS story out, and now he is unable to use Twitter to sew seeds of doubt in the election process.  His biggest propaganda platform has been taken away.  Using parlor is way less affective because that is just a Republican echo chamber, similar to Breitbart, and only the base of his support will follow him there.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Ouch. Again with the personal shots.

Mods please do NOT give GM a time out. He's good people and has a long history as being a good poster.

I'm taking all this as friendly ribbing.

I'm sorry, NB.  I shouldn't have been insulting towards you; you don't deserve that.  I'm just taken a little aback by your belief that social media is unfairly censoring or blocking right wing, conservative users unjustly.  I view it as an effort to contain the spread of disinformation moreso than an attack on conservative beliefs.  I see you disagree and that's gotta be okay with me.  I still like and respect you and I'm sorry if I insulted you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Twitter really hamstrung the propaganda machine for Trump.  The PRIVATE company made a decision that they would not be used as an influencer on elections by vetting the material that is tweeted out as being factual or non-factual.  A good decision in my opinion.

Trump wasn't able to get the Hunter Biden BS story out, and now he is unable to use Twitter to sew seeds of doubt in the election process.  His biggest propaganda platform has been taken away.  Using parlor is way less affective because that is just a Republican echo chamber, similar to Breitbart, and only the base of his support will follow him there.

However, I worry that environment is going to lead to radicalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Drunken Cowboy said:

I thought about saying further radicalization. However, I am worried about terrorist activity, like the Michigan plot. I still don't think this level of radicalization is at all common

I hope not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

 

NB...these are the posts which started the whole link and spoonfed argument.  After the first I said I was unaware of such a proven thing and that it was baseless claims by conservatives...your reply was that the head of twitter testified to this.   I then asked you for linkes.

Now...what was provided...was a link about they should not have censored or removed the stuff about Hunter Biden.  That is not proving what you claimed here...in fact...he seems to have said the opposite in his testimony.

A link

And another about bias...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54698186

Reminds me of moderation here...people complain...people accuse Joe and his moderators of being biased against conservatives...as with the article and "big tech", it seems such complaints are quite unfounded.  There are also several studies and stories out there going over and debunking the claims of shadow banning conservatives.

So I stand by my post that they are baseless complaints about overall bias and censorship.

I agree with you that's it's a little like the moderation here. Twitter has admitted their unfairmess and the mods admit the moderation here is unfair.

It's pretty simple - if you never get an unfair time out or never have a thread get deleted you can close your eyes and claim "baseless". For those who see it and experience it first hand, it is not baseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It doesn’t seem like your response is to what Rich Conway stated.

He was saying Twitter isn't biased against conservatives, conservatives post untrue things. I guess my response is: I disagree. For all the reasons that were bolded previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I agree with you that's it's a little like the moderation here. Twitter has admitted their unfairmess and the mods admit the moderation here is unfair.

It's pretty simple - if you never get an unfair time out or never have a thread get deleted you can close your eyes and claim "baseless". For those who see it and experience it first hand, it is not baseless.

Do you have a link to either of the bolded?  Legit question as I've never seen either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

This response is a complete non-sequitur.  Go back to the example I gave.  Donald Trump frequently posts things on Twitter that are untrue.  I have never posted something untrue (again, total of 5 tweets, but still).  Twitter fact checks Donald Trump frequently.  Are they fact checking him more than me because they are biased in favor of me, or because he posts untrue things?

If conservatives post untrue things more frequently than others, it should be expected that Twitter fact checks conservatives most frequently, and it would NOT be an indication of bias in any way.

First I disagree that conservatives post more untrue things than others.

Second, twitters "fact check" was untrue. I'm guessing that's why they changed it.

Third, that doesn't address all the shadow banning, de-platforming, suspending that Twitter engages in against conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Do you have a link to either of the bolded?  Legit question as I've never seen either.

 

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

 

Dorsey admits it was ‘wrong’ to censor Hunter Biden story, NY Post

155,884 views

•Nov 17, 2020

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey addresses censorship concerns during Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

If you haven't seen at least the Twitter part, then you aren't looking hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

First I disagree that conservatives post more untrue things than others.

Second, twitters "fact check" was untrue. I'm guessing that's why they changed it.

Third, that doesn't address all the shadow banning, de-platforming, suspending that Twitter engages in against conservatives.

I don't know what "shadow banning" or "de-platforming" mean.  I would consider suspending the same thing as fact-checking; if a poster consistently violates the terms of service, they shouldn't complain they're being picked on unfairly when Twitter takes action.

I understand you disagree that conservatives post more untrue things.  That wasn't my argument.  My argument was "Twitter fact-checks conservatives more than liberals" is NOT proof that "Twitter is biased against conservatives".  There are (at least) two possible explanations for the outcome of "Twitter fact-checks conservatives more than liberals":
1. Twitter is biased against conservatives
2. Conservatives post more untrue things than liberals
3. Possible other explanation

Without more information than "Twitter fact-checks conservatives more than liberals" (assuming that's true in the first place; I have no way of knowing, nor do I particularly care), it is impossible to logically reach any of the conclusions above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Doug B said:
2 hours ago, Doug B said:
2 hours ago, Doug B said:

It appears that conservatives on Twitter such as Michael Gerson and George Will, for instance, don't get suspended or fact-checked. Expressions of philosophical conservatism are apparently allowed freely on Twitter. Expressions railing against the worst excesses of the left wing are also apparently allowed.

What appears to be getting shut down on Twitter, then, is not broad conservatism -- but instead, attempts to exploit Twitter's reach by lying and propagandizing.

Yeah ... looking into this a little deeper, even a conservative commentator as inflammatory as Cal Thomas doesn't seem to ever get his Twitter account suspended or get his tweets fact-checked or anything like that.

Heck, looking into this still deeper ... Ted Nugent doesn't even get suspended or fact-checked. I thing Nugent is at least somewhat conservative.

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina with a clean sheet on Twitter.

OK, I've seen enough -- merely being a conservative won't get you shut down on Twitter. A conservative has to raise their game a few more levels to start getting fact-checked and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunderlips said:

Are Conservatives posting comments that are needed to be "fact checked" at a higher number than others?  

Between Trump and Biden....which candidate do you feel posts more comments that should be "fact checked"?

Trump. By far. But then again I don't think Biden writes any of his own tweets. If you listen the man talk, and then read his tweets - that's at least two different people. 

I also don't think it's relevant to the point about Twitters bias.

 

For those of you who don't believe Twitter, and other social media, have a left leaning bias: do you also dispute the ideas of a liberal media? A liberal Hollywood? Academia?

I mean is Twitter somehow your Alamo here or is all of it just bAsElEsS AcCuSatIoNs!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, guys, can we get back to  the topic instead of a broad discussion on  social media censorship?

Trump campaign will be pursuing a recount in just two Wisconsin counties. For the bargain price of $3 mil ( instead of the $8 mil the whole state would cost)
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/18/trump-campaign-seek-partial-recount-wisconsin/6339193002/

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The Wayne County thing is fascinating. The 2 Republican board members looked horrible. In a very diverse county, they pretty much were exposed as openly racist. The one guy has FB posts calling Obama a Muslim President and complaining about Muslims moving to his town. He told the people on Zoom for the public virtual meeting that he wouldn’t call on them if he couldn’t pronounce their names. Then despite that other mostly white cities had a bigger discrepancy and these discrepancies are normal, the only city they had issue with was Detroit. The snakes are being fully exposed. 

Which would be a legitimate complaint about that person being even on such a board.  That their own complete bias would be detrimental to fair elections.

Instead, we get silence from those complaining about the election...and instead are complaining that it isn't bi-partisan to be verifying signatures.  As if a signature has a party just by the look of it.  That is the nonsense that is being dealt with by these election officials and some judges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, General Malaise said:
4 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Ouch. Again with the personal shots.

Mods please do NOT give GM a time out. He's good people and has a long history as being a good poster.

I'm taking all this as friendly ribbing.

I'm sorry, NB.  I shouldn't have been insulting towards you; you don't deserve that.  I'm just taken a little aback by your belief that social media is unfairly censoring or blocking right wing, conservative users unjustly.  I view it as an effort to contain the spread of disinformation moreso than an attack on conservative beliefs.  I see you disagree and that's gotta be okay with me.  I still like and respect you and I'm sorry if I insulted you.

We're cool. My post was mostly to set up the punchline response to Capella immediately following. I'm also cool with Capella and did not actually report him. It was "humor", sorry you missed it.

I don't participate in boards that are mostly conservative (agreement is boring af honestly) but if I did, and a conservative friend suddenly started posting liberal views, I imagine I'd feel pretty much what you're experiencing. Cheers.

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Hey, guys, can we get back to  the topic instead of a broad discussion on  social media censorship?

Trump campaign will be pursuing a recount in just two Milwaukee counties. For the bargain price of $2mil ( instead of the $8 mil the whole state would cost)
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/18/trump-campaign-seek-partial-recount-wisconsin/6339193002/

How is that fair?  You want a recount in only the counties where you lost?

Will Wisconsin let them do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

How is that fair?  You want a recount in only the counties where you lost?

Will Wisconsin let them do that?

I believe they are. Supposed to get it in by 5 pm today (the request). Money up front is required iirc.

Link

Edited by Osaurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I agree with you that's it's a little like the moderation here. Twitter has admitted their unfairmess and the mods admit the moderation here is unfair.

It's pretty simple - if you never get an unfair time out or never have a thread get deleted you can close your eyes and claim "baseless". For those who see it and experience it first hand, it is not baseless.

Again...that is not quite what Twitter admitted...thats the point...I posted the articles about the hearings and there are more.  Saying they were wrong in the Hunter Biden thing...is not the same as them admitting its all unfair.  From what I have seen, they have not done as much.  If you have something saying otherwise...please post it (that is not spoonfeeding me...that is not a dishonest attempt to get you to post something...its an actual question because what I have read and posted does not show them saying that).

I have had timeouts for things I see as less that what has been posted towards me...I have had posts and threads deleted.  What I don't do is proclaim something is all biased against me and people like me.   That would be baseless claim.   Just as it appears to be a baseless claim about twitter (as supported by the links I have posted).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

How is that fair?  You want a recount in only the counties where you lost?

Will Wisconsin let them do that?

Frankly, that seems like poor strategy.  If I was hoping to increase my own vote total relative to my opponent, I would ask for a recount only in counties where I won.

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Well a couple of issues. First they said that "Official sources" called the race for Biden. And that's not true. Even in the tweet Huckabee RTs, it's changed but if you scroll down you see screen shots of what they originally "fact checked" with. Of course they have a right to do whatever they want - that's never been in dispute.

Also, there's plenty of people tweeting that Biden won and those tweets didn't get a fact check. Also the head of Twitter admitted they targeted Trump for fact checking.

“I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country,”


-Donald J Trump

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, James Daulton said:
10 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Hey, guys, can we get back to  the topic instead of a broad discussion on  social media censorship?

Trump campaign will be pursuing a recount in just two Milwaukee counties. For the bargain price of $2mil ( instead of the $8 mil the whole state would cost)
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/18/trump-campaign-seek-partial-recount-wisconsin/6339193002/

How is that fair?  You want a recount in only the counties where you lost?

Will Wisconsin let them do that?

Yes, in Wisconsin, a candidate can ask for a recount in certain specific counties only.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Do you have a link to either of the bolded?  Legit question as I've never seen either.

I don't have a link to the Twitter CEO handy at the moment. It was quite the buzz (on Twitter!) as it was happening in real time during his testimony to congress.  There's been such interesting discussion about Twitter here and so many people seem sincerely surprised at the idea the platform is biased it should be it's own thread. It's really a side discussion for this thread. I start it myself but I don't want to get yet another thread deleted by the mods ( or get another time out).

The admission that the moderation here is unfair is in the thread about bannings at the top of the forum. I'd link it but it's pinned. To be clear, I think the moderation here is mostly awesome! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Was there fraud in 2016? Don't seem to recall you being vocal about election fraud back then.  Feel free to correct me. 

TONS of it.

Trump accused Ted Cruz of Fraud when he won Iowa iirc

He then accused every Republican running against him of fraud, because the only way he could lose the primary was if it was rigged

He then accused the Dems of fraud because his fragile ego couldn't lose the popular vote

This is what he does because he has to have an excuse for losing. If there was fraud in this election, the people responsible should be locked in a room with Trump for a year as punishment. And maybe then hanged. But forgive me for thinking for a second that I could almost live with the boy who cried wolf being eaten by his own invention.

Edited by Sideshow Bob
Probably wine
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mystery Achiever said:

They need to find 20,655 votes in Wisconsin. Recounts have never swapped more than a few hundred. It doesn't matter where they count.
Also like the PA suit(s), this is just more political theater and delay tactics.

Yeah I think the whole strategy is a) poison the well enough to try to pressure the legislators to assign electoral voters and/or b) fundraise personally for Trump Co. and never have to admit to a loss

I really hope that Manhatten DA has something great waiting for him in February.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...