• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Aaaand Trump’s having a normal one, complete with a literal Nazi Germany reference. I wonder which of his ‘highly accomplished attorneys’ helped draft this?

View attachment 79213
Now Covid broke spacetime and all that, but I'm pretty sure Aug 2020 wasn't exact a "great economy" time in the US (or anywhere else).
 
Ah yes, Newsmax. The site of choice when Fox is too "woke left".

...and yes, that is me dismissing a site out of hand. I do the same with far-left sites too.
So you're saying they're making it up? Or are you just demonizing them because of your bias. Your opinion carries no weight comparatively. And just so you don't spout the same nonsense everytime I post a link, (twice in a row now) let's just agree that it's your status quo and you'll never agree. Then we won't have to play games when you post a link. I post a variety of links from many sources in every direction. Not just sites that feed me pablum that I want to hear. It's pretty narrow minded and petty to dismiss something out of hand without even considering the content, based on a preconceived bias.
 
Here's a few sites with the same story. Perhaps one of these will fit your bias.




 
Here's a few sites with the same story. Perhaps one of these will fit your bias.




The reason why it's the same story is because they all quote the same Fox News article that you also linked. They aren't 4 articles that happen to be similar - they're practically cut/pasting the Fox article and slapping on their site.
 
So, having now had the chance to read the indictment for attempting to steal the election, some observations and thoughts:

This is a pretty clean and clear cut set of charges. Nothing appears to be a stretch; not a mention of things like sedition or insurrection… The whole thing basically revolves around The Big Lie, and the attempt to corruptly reverse (i.e., steal) the election for Trump, and to prevent the legitimate counting of the real electoral votes.

There are six as-yet unindicted co-conspirators. So far as I can tell from the commentary of others, they include Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeff Clark, Ken Chesebro, and Jason Miler. Mark Meadows remains conspicuously absent; dude probably flipped like a TAPV.

If further indictments issue, which is likely, John Eastman and Jeff Clark are utterly fucked and will likely go to federal prison. They were both integral to the conspiracy and tried over and over to corruptly change the outcome.

Donald Trump has no conceivable, no plausible claim that he could possibly believe on any factual basis that he won the election. The lies that pervaded his efforts were constant, blatant, and absurd.

There were a multitude of cautions from all sorts of people that there was no valid legal basis for any of the attempts to put forward fraudulent slates of electors. I think the fact set here is suggestive of likely prosecutions at state level, for those states who decided to criminally investigate this.

So uh, yeah. Wow. Most of the information here has been previously known, lots of it from the Jan 6th committee, but this indictment puts it all together quite cleanly. Incidentally, max sentence for two of the charges is 20 years, just to establish the gravity of the charges laid.

The page count? 45. chef’s kiss
 
Last edited:
The reason why it's the same story is because they all quote the same Fox News article that you also linked. They aren't 4 articles that happen to be similar - they're practically cut/pasting the Fox article and slapping on their site.
Oh my, collusion within the legacy media! Seeing as it went over your head, they were posted to show your bias is well spread over a spectrum.

Fin
 
Oh my, collusion within the legacy media! Seeing as it went over your head, they were posted to show your bias is well spread over a spectrum.

Fin
What spectrum?

The 3 (I’m not counting Yahoo bc it is just a rebroadcast of the Fox article - it doesn’t write any of its own articles) are right leaning sites that used the same article in their pieces.
 
Surely one of these days the "Trump!" news is going to be dumped before the "Bidens!" news.
 
Anyone remember Sam Bankman-Fried? An American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster. Bankman-Fried was the founder and CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and associated trading firm Alameda Research, both of which experienced a high-profile collapse resulting in chapter 11 bankruptcy in late 2022.

He was the second largest donor to the Democrats after George Soros.

One of his charges, of campaign financing, has been dropped.

 
Uhh…probably. Newsmax and Gateway Pundit has a history of making shit up.

Another one 🤣 Even when the story has been confirmed, by other outlets. You didn't even read the articles, just counted on your bias like someone else😂 It’s too easy to blame the messenger instead of proving them wrong. Laziness and partisan, some would call it.
 
CBC is biased. MSNBC is biased. Fox is biased. Newsmax has a history of not just being biased, but of making stuff up. So yeah, if a “news outlet” has a history where if they say the sky is blue, and I have to look outside to verify that, then I will probably discount what they say.
 
Anyone remember Sam Bankman-Fried? An American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster. Bankman-Fried was the founder and CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and associated trading firm Alameda Research, both of which experienced a high-profile collapse resulting in chapter 11 bankruptcy in late 2022.

He was the second largest donor to the Democrats after George Soros.

One of his charges, of campaign financing, has been dropped.

One charge. The Conspiracy one, that was somewhat shaky to begin with. He is still up on several other ones.
 
In on-line articles there are usually references - links - to other sources. A couple of clicks and you'll probably have access to some direct quotations and/or references directly to government statements and on-line policy documents. In that case, the provenance of the first author is irrelevant.

Or it is completely made up, which is also not hard to verify.

Denial by obfuscation - refusing to read - is self-imposed ignorance. It may be tiresome to do a little cross-checking, but it's necessary.
 
Here's a few sites with the same story. Perhaps one of these will fit your bias.




Honestly I’m not shocked.
Even in my County which is rural Virginia, those programs were removed from schools a few years ago.
Pre COVID my sons class did an overnight trip to a State Outdoor Facility. The permission forms were multiple, and volunteering as a chaperone, they ran a full background check.
Even folks who where firearms instructors with local, state and Federal agencies where not allowed to do any instruction or assist with the firearm or archery classes, nor where we supposed to bring firearms with us (everyone of the LEO’s lol’d about that one).

Even JRTOC in Public HighSchools here can’t train with real firearms. The rifles for drill are all dummies, and all range work is done on NGAR ranges, and no loiter mandatory…
 
There
It may be tiresome to do a little cross-checking, but it's necessary.
There is also this option: those citing an article from a controversial source could do the cross-checking. Post the article link; post links to official sources (if any); extract relevant quotes from actual named people that support whatever point is to be made. At least then we just have the one post, and maybe not the usual handful of additional posts by people virtuously protecting us from the possibility of political bias.
 
Another one 🤣 Even when the story has been confirmed, by other outlets. You didn't even read the articles, just counted on your bias like someone else😂 It’s too easy to blame the messenger instead of proving them wrong. Laziness and partisan, some would call it.
I read the articles. The story wasn't confirmed by other outlets - they took the same story and linked it.

Confirming would imply they also wrote something about it separate from Fox, not "Fox reports that XYZ". That's just repeating what Fox's article says.
 
Back
Top