The Democratic Party and some of the people who supported the Democratic Party did more to try to “steal the election” than Trump, and was much more successful. I’m not talking about ballot fraud--I’m talking about the active suppression of information on public channels of communication. That use of power is much more concerning to me…
The Democratic Party and some of the people who supported the Democratic Party did more to try to “steal the election” than Trump, and was much more successful. I’m not talking about ballot fraud--I’m talking about the active suppression of information on public channels of communication. That use of power is much more concerning to me than Trump’s ridiculous attempt at getting Congress to agree to overturn the election results. You seem pretty convinced that Trump deserved impeachment but don’t seem equally appalled by the unethical behavior of Democrats.
If Trump deserves an impeachment for “instigating a riot”, Shumer certainly deserves one for “instigating an assassination plot.” Shumer certainly didn’t tell people to bring a whirlwind with peace when he made his original comment. And of course how about all the Democrats who tried to get Trump ousted from office between 2016 and 2020 with ridiculous accusations about collusion with Russia or quid pro quos? They were trying to “overthrow an election.” Where are the courageous Democratic politicians going after Adam Schiff? Do you not care about the lack of “courage” most democrats have over not impeaching Democratic politicians who have done or said something heinous? When will more Democrats have the courage to acknowledge their legacy of slavery?
The notion there is something special about Republican Party vices that the Democratic Party doesn’t share or even manifest to a worse degree is erroneous.
The most powerful elements in both parties are currently primarily driven by corrupt motivations.
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about in your first paragraph. Maybe the Democratic party succeeded in keeping that information from me. Could you be more specific? (But no Hunter Biden, please. Even Ted Cruz admitted of that story, "I don't think it moves a single voter.")
In your second paragraph, you are comparing apples and oranges. Yes, Schumer's statement was terrible, but it was also a ten-second outburst for which he later apologized, saying "I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended." No pattern suggests Schumer was seriously "instigating an assassination plot". There's no "Eastman Memo" in which a lawyer comes to Chuck Schumer's office and explains to him how to knock off a conservative SCOTUS justice. Adam Schiff is just one of many losers in the House of Representatives. He commands no "base". He has no real power individually. As for Democrats having "the courage to acknowledge their legacy of slavery", man, that's Robin DiAngelo's territory! 😄
Given that every major Democratic politician would, if asked about America needing to better acknowledge its legacy of slavery, confirm that America does in fact need to better acknowledge it, and that the Democratic Party has recently began multiple commissions on exploring America’s legacy of slavery, the territory is not simply DiAngelo’s, it is the primary narrative that Democratic politicians use to demagogue black people. Which is precisely why it would require enormous courage for any Democrat who wasn’t just an apologist for the Party of Slavery to actually encourage the Democratic Party to take the primary blame for the legacy of slavery that it so frequently appeals to for votes and scape goats upon America in general.
A poll was done asking Biden swing state voters if they would have still voted for Biden had they known of various information about Biden, including stuff related to the Hunter laptop, and 16% said has they known of that information, they would have not voted for Biden. That would have been sufficient for Biden to have lost the election. What information is suppressed or amplified by the major media sources, including social media, can have dramatic affects on voting outcomes. And the major media organizations primarily support the Democratic Party, as do the major social media tech companies, which use algorithms to manipulate what information is presented to their users, and that includes search engines such as Google and Bing.
So yes, if you weren’t aware of this, it’s quite possibly because the information that you are receiving has been manipulated by people who support the Democratic Party. Or you could have known but just don’t care because you are a tool.
And what does Schiff’s status have to do with whether he should be impeached? He has had enough power to vote for increased defense budget every time it was proposed for his entire career. I think that is sufficient power to warrant impeachment. And if he is such a loser, impeaching him should be very easy, yet Democratic politicians apparently don’t even have the courage for that.
As for Schumer, I don’t actually have confidence he was instigating an assassination plot, but if I applied the same lack of rigor and logical consistency people apply to what Trump said to his supporters that is supposed to be evidence of instigating the riot, Schumer I could confidently find him guilty. Him apologizing wouldn’t matter in Trump hating land--Trump explicitly told his followers to be peaceful and that doesn’t matter at all to those who think he instigated violence. Thus your excuse for Schumer is worthless: Schumer is just a two faced liar that really wanted the Supreme Court justice assassinated and knows that he can say violent things then apologize and people like you will buy it, but some followers will understand what he really wants, and that’s a dead Supreme Court justice. See how I can mimic the thinking of a person who hates Trump beyond all rationality? Sounds like you have that bug.
That MRC study to which you linked would make a beautiful object lesson in an Intro to Statistics class when discussing the need for careful research design if you hope to obtain meaningful results - and not just propaganda - from it. It perfectly illustrates the "garbage in, garbage out" maxim. Such leading questions!
An example:
"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that Joe Biden chose as his running mate and successor Kamala Harris, rated the most left wing Senator in America, even more leftist that Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist?"
or this:
"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that under President Trump's policies, the U.S. last year became energy independent – exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history?"
Gee wiz! These were the sorts of questions used to butter up the respondents (all of whom were on the internet by the way - and no mention is made of how the respondents were obtained in the first place) over and over before asking them, "Well... now that you know that Biden is the Devil and that Trump is an angel, would you still - if you had to do it all over again - have voted for that terrible man Biden?" Needless to say, these survey results are worthless - purely on research design grounds. It's a parody of a professional survey.
More importantly, now that Biden has proven what a terrible choice he was, many are now anxious to distance themselves from him. So maybe the 17% were merely regretting foolishly voting for Biden.
Unfortunately that doesn’t say anything about how impactful the suppression of it was on voter behavior.
Albeit, I have a hard time believing that the suppression and manipulation of information doesn’t have a significant impact on what people vote for, or just believe about anything.
And the laptop story is just a single instance of a much broader behavior of censorship or suppression of information on behalf of Democratic Party narratives. It of course happens on things like Fox on behalf of Republican Party narratives, but given that the Democratic Party has the support of tech companies and most corporate journalism, the scale is just greater.
Do you think active suppression or manipulation of information by powerful organizations does not affect political behavior? For example, I don’t think the Chinese government does it just because the CCP is evil. It is effective.
And really, after the 2016 election, much of the Democratic Party was convinced that were it not from Russian interference, largely in its spread of misinformation on social media, Trump would have not won. It seems like there is agreement that what information people are privy to has an impact on elections. There is disagreement though about who is most responsible for the suppression and manipulation of information. I think it is the worst from people who support the Democratic Party.
I certainly do think suppression and manipulation of information can affect political behavior. We're in agreement there. And yes, the more respectable media outlets obviously tilt leftwards - often to a nauseating degree. I'll even agree with you that it was foolish of the usual media suspects to tiptoe around the Hunter Biden stuff, even if I also think the story itself was absurdly overblown by some right-wingers and wasn't going to change *anyone's* mind about who to vote for in the 2020 election.
But the right's "media suppression" narrative reminds me of the left's "voter suppression" narrative. It's not that there's nothing there, it's just that the something is small and has been magnified all out of proportion. This isn't China. This isn't Russia. It is trivially easy in the USA to obtain right-slanted media - running the gamut from solid reporting and piercing analysis to OpEd drivel and going all the way down to Tucker-style conspiracy theories and worse. To cite just one example, the Facebook pages that get the most engagement tend to be, week in and week out, dominated by right-wingers - and often trashy ones at that. (https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10)
If one wants to know what people on the right (or left) are saying about any topic whatsoever, one can find it with ease. Media suppression really isn't a problem in this country. That's not to say that the media landscape is healthy - it isn't - but media suppression isn't the problem.
Yes, there was a foolish sense among some Democrats after the 2016 election that Trump somehow hadn't really won. I dearly wish he hadn't won, but he did, fair and square. Still, we had an orderly transfer of power. Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech on November 9, 2016. Obama showed Trump around the White House.
The Democratic Party and some of the people who supported the Democratic Party did more to try to “steal the election” than Trump, and was much more successful. I’m not talking about ballot fraud--I’m talking about the active suppression of information on public channels of communication. That use of power is much more concerning to me than Trump’s ridiculous attempt at getting Congress to agree to overturn the election results. You seem pretty convinced that Trump deserved impeachment but don’t seem equally appalled by the unethical behavior of Democrats.
If Trump deserves an impeachment for “instigating a riot”, Shumer certainly deserves one for “instigating an assassination plot.” Shumer certainly didn’t tell people to bring a whirlwind with peace when he made his original comment. And of course how about all the Democrats who tried to get Trump ousted from office between 2016 and 2020 with ridiculous accusations about collusion with Russia or quid pro quos? They were trying to “overthrow an election.” Where are the courageous Democratic politicians going after Adam Schiff? Do you not care about the lack of “courage” most democrats have over not impeaching Democratic politicians who have done or said something heinous? When will more Democrats have the courage to acknowledge their legacy of slavery?
The notion there is something special about Republican Party vices that the Democratic Party doesn’t share or even manifest to a worse degree is erroneous.
The most powerful elements in both parties are currently primarily driven by corrupt motivations.
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about in your first paragraph. Maybe the Democratic party succeeded in keeping that information from me. Could you be more specific? (But no Hunter Biden, please. Even Ted Cruz admitted of that story, "I don't think it moves a single voter.")
In your second paragraph, you are comparing apples and oranges. Yes, Schumer's statement was terrible, but it was also a ten-second outburst for which he later apologized, saying "I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended." No pattern suggests Schumer was seriously "instigating an assassination plot". There's no "Eastman Memo" in which a lawyer comes to Chuck Schumer's office and explains to him how to knock off a conservative SCOTUS justice. Adam Schiff is just one of many losers in the House of Representatives. He commands no "base". He has no real power individually. As for Democrats having "the courage to acknowledge their legacy of slavery", man, that's Robin DiAngelo's territory! 😄
Given that every major Democratic politician would, if asked about America needing to better acknowledge its legacy of slavery, confirm that America does in fact need to better acknowledge it, and that the Democratic Party has recently began multiple commissions on exploring America’s legacy of slavery, the territory is not simply DiAngelo’s, it is the primary narrative that Democratic politicians use to demagogue black people. Which is precisely why it would require enormous courage for any Democrat who wasn’t just an apologist for the Party of Slavery to actually encourage the Democratic Party to take the primary blame for the legacy of slavery that it so frequently appeals to for votes and scape goats upon America in general.
As for the Hunter Biden story that you think doesn’t matter. https://cdn.mrc.org/TPC-MRC+Biden+Voter+Messaging+Survey+Analysis+Nov+2020_final.pdf
A poll was done asking Biden swing state voters if they would have still voted for Biden had they known of various information about Biden, including stuff related to the Hunter laptop, and 16% said has they known of that information, they would have not voted for Biden. That would have been sufficient for Biden to have lost the election. What information is suppressed or amplified by the major media sources, including social media, can have dramatic affects on voting outcomes. And the major media organizations primarily support the Democratic Party, as do the major social media tech companies, which use algorithms to manipulate what information is presented to their users, and that includes search engines such as Google and Bing.
So yes, if you weren’t aware of this, it’s quite possibly because the information that you are receiving has been manipulated by people who support the Democratic Party. Or you could have known but just don’t care because you are a tool.
And what does Schiff’s status have to do with whether he should be impeached? He has had enough power to vote for increased defense budget every time it was proposed for his entire career. I think that is sufficient power to warrant impeachment. And if he is such a loser, impeaching him should be very easy, yet Democratic politicians apparently don’t even have the courage for that.
As for Schumer, I don’t actually have confidence he was instigating an assassination plot, but if I applied the same lack of rigor and logical consistency people apply to what Trump said to his supporters that is supposed to be evidence of instigating the riot, Schumer I could confidently find him guilty. Him apologizing wouldn’t matter in Trump hating land--Trump explicitly told his followers to be peaceful and that doesn’t matter at all to those who think he instigated violence. Thus your excuse for Schumer is worthless: Schumer is just a two faced liar that really wanted the Supreme Court justice assassinated and knows that he can say violent things then apologize and people like you will buy it, but some followers will understand what he really wants, and that’s a dead Supreme Court justice. See how I can mimic the thinking of a person who hates Trump beyond all rationality? Sounds like you have that bug.
Oh, no. It 𝘸𝘢𝘴 Hunter.
That MRC study to which you linked would make a beautiful object lesson in an Intro to Statistics class when discussing the need for careful research design if you hope to obtain meaningful results - and not just propaganda - from it. It perfectly illustrates the "garbage in, garbage out" maxim. Such leading questions!
An example:
"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that Joe Biden chose as his running mate and successor Kamala Harris, rated the most left wing Senator in America, even more leftist that Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist?"
or this:
"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that under President Trump's policies, the U.S. last year became energy independent – exporting more crude oil than we imported – for the first time in recorded history?"
Gee wiz! These were the sorts of questions used to butter up the respondents (all of whom were on the internet by the way - and no mention is made of how the respondents were obtained in the first place) over and over before asking them, "Well... now that you know that Biden is the Devil and that Trump is an angel, would you still - if you had to do it all over again - have voted for that terrible man Biden?" Needless to say, these survey results are worthless - purely on research design grounds. It's a parody of a professional survey.
More importantly, now that Biden has proven what a terrible choice he was, many are now anxious to distance themselves from him. So maybe the 17% were merely regretting foolishly voting for Biden.
The survey was conducted in November 2020, after the election, but before Biden took office.
Actually, I think your criticism of the poll is valid. As far as polls go, admittedly it is poor.
There is another poll I’m aware of by Rasmussen simply asking whether voters think the laptop story is important, and about 2/3 claimed it was.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2022/hunter_s_laptop_from_hell_is_an_important_story_voters_say
Unfortunately that doesn’t say anything about how impactful the suppression of it was on voter behavior.
Albeit, I have a hard time believing that the suppression and manipulation of information doesn’t have a significant impact on what people vote for, or just believe about anything.
And the laptop story is just a single instance of a much broader behavior of censorship or suppression of information on behalf of Democratic Party narratives. It of course happens on things like Fox on behalf of Republican Party narratives, but given that the Democratic Party has the support of tech companies and most corporate journalism, the scale is just greater.
Do you think active suppression or manipulation of information by powerful organizations does not affect political behavior? For example, I don’t think the Chinese government does it just because the CCP is evil. It is effective.
And really, after the 2016 election, much of the Democratic Party was convinced that were it not from Russian interference, largely in its spread of misinformation on social media, Trump would have not won. It seems like there is agreement that what information people are privy to has an impact on elections. There is disagreement though about who is most responsible for the suppression and manipulation of information. I think it is the worst from people who support the Democratic Party.
I certainly do think suppression and manipulation of information can affect political behavior. We're in agreement there. And yes, the more respectable media outlets obviously tilt leftwards - often to a nauseating degree. I'll even agree with you that it was foolish of the usual media suspects to tiptoe around the Hunter Biden stuff, even if I also think the story itself was absurdly overblown by some right-wingers and wasn't going to change *anyone's* mind about who to vote for in the 2020 election.
But the right's "media suppression" narrative reminds me of the left's "voter suppression" narrative. It's not that there's nothing there, it's just that the something is small and has been magnified all out of proportion. This isn't China. This isn't Russia. It is trivially easy in the USA to obtain right-slanted media - running the gamut from solid reporting and piercing analysis to OpEd drivel and going all the way down to Tucker-style conspiracy theories and worse. To cite just one example, the Facebook pages that get the most engagement tend to be, week in and week out, dominated by right-wingers - and often trashy ones at that. (https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10)
If one wants to know what people on the right (or left) are saying about any topic whatsoever, one can find it with ease. Media suppression really isn't a problem in this country. That's not to say that the media landscape is healthy - it isn't - but media suppression isn't the problem.
Yes, there was a foolish sense among some Democrats after the 2016 election that Trump somehow hadn't really won. I dearly wish he hadn't won, but he did, fair and square. Still, we had an orderly transfer of power. Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech on November 9, 2016. Obama showed Trump around the White House.