Is Wikipedia politically biased? You tell me

[BlackSand]

Yet you still find my remarks interesting enough to require your opinion. You're welcome.

.

Opinion about what ... What did you think I got wrong?
I stated you preferred the Opinions of the Court and did not care to entertain a discussion about how they could be one thing or another?
Was that wrong ... Because that's what you keep saying?


I mean if you want to discuss it ... Let's discuss it.
"You're welcome" for what ... Addressing your tripe ...

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

.

Opinion about what ... What did you think I got wrong?
I stated you preferred the Opinions of the Court and did not care to entertain a discussion about how they could be one thing or another?
Was that wrong ... Because that's what you keep saying?


I mean if you want to discuss it ... Let's discuss it.
"You're welcome" for what ... Addressing your tripe ...

.​

I didn't say you were wrong other than the part about you not caring what I say.

 

[Faun]

Wiki is available for anyone to edit. In a debate about Joe McCarthy, I had someone cite a wiki article about Joe as fact. I edited it to say that McCarthy collaborated with Nixon to write a cookbook. That edit stayed for a long time, several months at least. Someone edited it to say "nonsense" but it stayed.

I just tried it again to see if that is still the case:

View attachment 745662


The part about being elected pope is not real, BTW.

Joseph McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Be interesting to see how long that stays.

Whoops! It's gone now already. I guess with the Pandemic, there are plenty of basement-dwelling fact checkers available.

It lasted 1 minute.

 

[BlackSand]

I didn't say you were wrong other than the part about you not caring what I say.

.

In the first post you responded with ... You said I was "partially right" ... What did you mean by that?
And ... I didn't say I didn't care about what you posted ... I said I "wasn't asking you a question".

I might have misunderstood what you meant in your first response ...
But you definitely misunderstood my position towards what you think about it in my response to that.
Other than that ... You don't need to tell me you didn't think I was wrong ... Because again ... I wasn't asking.

If you want to discuss anything ... Try to find the Topic.
The whole reason I even mentioned you was to try to find an end to the useless conversation you were having ...
And I have to admit ... I am still failing at doing that ...

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

.

In the first post you responded with ... You said I was "partially right" ... What did you mean by that?
And ... I didn't say I didn't care about what you posted ... I said I "wasn't asking you a question".

I might have misunderstood what you meant in your first response ...
But you definitely misunderstood my position towards what you think about it in my response to that.
Other than that ... You don't need to tell me you didn't think I was wrong ... Because again ... I wasn't asking.

If you want to discuss anything ... Try to find the Topic.
The whole reason I even mentioned you was to try to find an end to the useless conversation you were having ...
And I have to admit ... I am still failing at doing that ...

.​

real life calls. I will get back with you.

 

[BlackSand]

I will get back with you.

.

No need to ... Good Luck in Your Endeavors.

.​

 

[Lesh]

LoL! I read about astrology when I was in late elementary through Junior High. My mom never went to a day of college, but she was very smart and loved to read. She bought books on astrology, UFO's building the pyramids, pop psychology, all that seventies suff. I was a real Watergate buff and read all the books by all the crooks. Those books seem silly now, but they made me a reader and taught me critical thinking.

Much better than today's comic books featuring explicit child sex.

Funny you ask because my mother, my sister, my wife and my daughter are all libras. Makes it easy to remember birthdays, because they all happen at the beginning of the school year.

It is ironic that they have even started calling questioning the election "the big lie." That people who question the election are lying is itself a lie, and they have repeated it over and over again to the point that folks like Bulldog assume that it must be true. In other words the exact process of the Big Lie.

I'll check out the book.

Raised in UFO nonsense. No wonder you’re in the QKrew

 

[Seymour Flops]

Utter bullshit.

More than 2 years since the election and no widespread election fraud has been proven.

Quote me the part of that post in which I said that widespread election fraud has been proven.

 

[Faun]

Quote me the part of that post in which I said that widespread election fraud has been proven.

The part where you said this ....

"supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory"​

... is not true. The only way that part in red can be untrue is if widespread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election had been proven. It has not. That means anyone denying Biden won is making a false claim.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The part where you said this ....

"supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory"​

... is not true. The only way that part in red can be untrue is if widespread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election had been proven. It has not. That means anyone denying Biden won is making a false claim.

Opinions don't have to be proven. They're opinions.

Stacy Abrams never proved widespread election fraud or voter suppression that would have changed the election, but she still gave her opinion that the election was stolen.

Nobody in the mainstream media called her a liar for it, and neither will you. That's the bias.

 

[Faun]

Opinions don't have to be proven. They're opinions.

Stacy Abrams never proved widespread election fraud or voter suppression that would have changed the election, but she still gave her opinion that the election was stolen.

Nobody in the mainstream media called her a liar for it, and neither will you. That's the bias.

Trump didn't state election fraud as just being his opinion. He stated it as fact, over and over and over again even after claims he made were debunked. Even after members of his own administration told him there was no widespread fraud.

As far as Abrams, Wikipedia also mentions her claims of fraud were not found.

And nobody cares about her election denials because nobody took any action on her claims. Whereas our Capitol was stormed because of Trump's lies and sending a slate of fake Trump electors to Congress was also attempted because of Trump's lies.

Regardless, the wiki article didn't say Trump lied. It said his claims of election fraud were "false," which they were.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump didn't state election fraud as just being his opinion.

I went to public school before it was completely destroyed by the Democratic party. In that public school and later in college, I was taught that when you write your opinion, it is not necessary to say this is my opinion at every sentence. I was taught to State my opinion and assume that the person listening would be intelligent enough to understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. I suppose my teachers did not anticipate political message board writing.

He stated it as fact, over and over and over again even after claims he made were debunked. Even after members of his own administration told him there was no widespread fraud

It wasn't a lie if Trump still believed it. There is no way to say that there was no widespread fraud, without that also being an opinion. You are welcome to your opinion and thus far so is everyone else. I know the Democrats long for the day when only one opinion is allowed. When we get to that day you can be a happy guy. Hate to break it to you, but we ain't there yet.

For what it's worth, Trump often says that the election was stolen, which is not the same as that there was widespread fraud. There are many other ways to steal an election and certainly many more ways to sway an election.

We now know, as fact and not opinion, that social media had its thumb was heavily on the scale during that election. We also know that they were encouraged by our so-called law enforcement agency to keep that thumb pressing harder on the scale. Does that amount to a stolen election? The answer is a matter of opinion..

As far as Abrams, Wikipedia also mentions her claims of fraud were not found.

Actually, the wiki article I read did not mention that Abrams claims were false until it said that Trump had made similar claims. It's like the TDS folk just can't help themselves. Why would Trump's name even come up in that article? The answer is called Trump derangement syndrome.

And nobody cares about her election denials because nobody took any action on her claims. Whereas our Capitol was stormed because of Trump's lies and sending a slate of fake Trump electors to Congress was also attempted because of Trump's lies.

Oh boo freaking hoo. A peaceful protest turned into a riot. The same thing happened at over 400 demonstrations during 2020, and the Democrats cheered them on.

Now all of a sudden because it's so out of character for republicans, it's a big deal. Try not to drown in your crocodile tears.

Of course, even our grandchildren will likely never know to what extent the FBI pushed for that riot. Christopher Ray avoids a question every time it is asked. Until the Justice department/fbi/democratic National Committee come clean on exactly what happened on January 6th, I'm not condemning anyone.

Not even Ray epps. Likely he believed he was doing the right thing. Evidently, the justice department believes that also. He is living large while January 6th protesters wrought in the

Regardless, the wiki article didn't say Trump lied. It said his claims of election fraud were "false," which they were.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion..

 

[Faun]

I went to public school before it was completely destroyed by the Democratic party. In that public school and later in college, I was taught that when you write your opinion, it is not necessary to say this is my opinion at every sentence. I was taught to State my opinion and assume that the person listening would be intelligent enough to understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact. I suppose my teachers did not anticipate political message board writing.

It wasn't a lie if Trump still believed it. There is no way to say that there was no widespread fraud, without that also being an opinion. You are welcome to your opinion and thus far so is everyone else. I know the Democrats long for the day when only one opinion is allowed. When we get to that day you can be a happy guy. Hate to break it to you, but we ain't there yet.

For what it's worth, Trump often says that the election was stolen, which is not the same as that there was widespread fraud. There are many other ways to steal an election and certainly many more ways to sway an election.

We now know, as fact and not opinion, that social media had its thumb was heavily on the scale during that election. We also know that they were encouraged by our so-called law enforcement agency to keep that thumb pressing harder on the scale. Does that amount to a stolen election? The answer is a matter of opinion..

Actually, the wiki article I read did not mention that Abrams claims were false until it said that Trump had made similar claims. It's like the TDS folk just can't help themselves. Why would Trump's name even come up in that article? The answer is called Trump derangement syndrome.

Oh boo freaking hoo. A peaceful protest turned into a riot. The same thing happened at over 400 demonstrations during 2020, and the Democrats cheered them on.

Now all of a sudden because it's so out of character for republicans, it's a big deal. Try not to drown in your crocodile tears.

Of course, even our grandchildren will likely never know to what extent the FBI pushed for that riot. Christopher Ray avoids a question every time it is asked. Until the Justice department/fbi/democratic National Committee come clean on exactly what happened on January 6th, I'm not condemning anyone.

Not even Ray epps. Likely he believed he was doing the right thing. Evidently, the justice department believes that also. He is living large while January 6th protesters wrought in the

You are certainly entitled to that opinion..

How sad you can't tell the difference between a street riot and an attack against the seat of our government to unconstitutionally install the loser of an election as president.

And sadly for you, there's zero evidence the FBI was involved. That's just another unfounded cultish perspective.

That aside, Trump cited specific cases of fraud that were debunked. His own administration informed him there was no widespread fraud. Then there's the DoJ note taken from a call with Trump where they claim Trump said, "don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen." Then there's Trump's own daughter who said she believed Barr when he said there was no evidence of wide spread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. Then there's the former strategist and Senior Counselor of his said their strategy was that Trump would declare he won, even though he didn't, should he lose. He even predicted Trump would be ahead election night but when the mail-in ballots are counted after that, Trump would do some crazy shit if Biden came from behind to win. Which of course, is exactly what happened.




It's simply not believable that Trump really believed there was widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How sad you can't tell the difference between a street riot and an attack against the seat of our government to unconstitutionally install the loser of an election as president.

How sad that you think that is what Jan 6th was.

And sadly for you, there's zero evidence the FBI was involved. That's just another unfounded cultish perspective.

Can you prove that there is zero evidence that the FBI was involved?

No, you cannot, because we know that they were "involved." The only question is to what extent. Wray and Mayorkas won't answer that, so I am left to assume the worst, and have that assumption uncontradicted.

That aside, Trump cited specific cases of fraud that were debunked. His own administration informed him there was no widespread fraud. Then there's the DoJ note taken from a call with Trump where they claim Trump said, "don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen."

They claim that, but can you prove that? It's the DOJ. Were you not listening to how corrupt the DOJ has been since Trump was nominated?

Then there's Trump's own daughter who said she believed Barr when he said there was no evidence of wide spread election fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. Then there's the former strategist and Senior Counselor of his said their strategy was that Trump would declare he won, even though he didn't, should he lose. He even predicted Trump would be ahead election night but when the mail-in ballots are counted after that, Trump would do some crazy shit if Biden came from behind to win. Which of course, is exactly what happened.

Again, "widespread voter fraud," the favorite catch phrase of the Democrats and Never-Trumpers, is not the only way that the results of an election can be unfairly influenced. Nor is the absence of proof of widespread fraud proof of the absence of widespread fraud.

You can accuse Trump of lying about widespread voter fraud because he hasn't proven it to your satisfaction. But you're not claiming to be a journalist, from whom more objectivity is expected.

It's simply not believable that Trump really believed there was widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election.

That's your opinion.

Here's what the supposedly unbiased wiki says about Stacy Abrams' claims of an illegitimate election:

In April 2021, a judge allowed some claims in the legal challenge to proceed while rejecting others.[72] In October 2022, a federal judge ruled against Fair Fight on the remaining claims, finding that Georgia's voting regulations did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.[74][75][76] According to the judge, the case "resulted in wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation and culminated in what is believed to have been the longest voting rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia."[71][77][78] Over the course of the lawsuit, Fair Fight raised $61 million and paid millions to Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, Abrams's campaign chair.[71]

Since losing the election, Abrams has repeatedly said that the election was not fairly conducted[79] and has declined to call Kemp the legitimate governor of Georgia.[80] Abrams has since said that she won the election and that the election was "stolen from the voters of Georgia", claims that election law expert Richard L. Hasen said lacked sufficient evidence.[81] Her position is that Kemp, who oversaw the election in his role as Secretary of State, had a conflict of interest and suppressed turnout by purging nearly 670,000 voter registrations in 2017, and that about 53,000 voter registrations were pending a month before the election.[79][82] She has said, "I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election."[79]

On November 9, 2018, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its investigation of the 2018 statewide elections in Georgia had found "no evidence ... of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election".[83] A USA Today fact check noted that the actions Kemp's office took during the election "can be explained as routine under state and federal law"; political scientist Charles S. Bullock III said there is "not much empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Kemp either suppressed the vote or 'stole' the election from Abrams."[84]

According to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, Abrams has variously claimed that she "won" the election, that the election was "rigged", that it was "stolen", that it was not "free and fair", and that Kemp had "cheated". Kessler said that "Abrams played up claims the election was stolen until such tactics became untenable for anyone who claims to be an advocate for American democratic norms and values".[85]

I wonder if you are bright enough to understand the difference between wiki presenting what Abrams actually said, and also presenting what other people said about what she said, rather than making purportedly factual statement such "Biden supported Abrams' false denial of Kemp's victory."

Actually, I take it back. I am confident that you are bright enough to understand the difference. I wonder if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.

Was Kemp fairly elected in 2018? Was he the legitimate governor of Georgia?

 

[BULLDOG]

How sad that you think that is what Jan 6th was.

Can you prove that there is zero evidence that the FBI was involved?

No, you cannot, because we know that they were "involved." The only question is to what extent. Wray and Mayorkas won't answer that, so I am left to assume the worst, and have that assumption uncontradicted.

They claim that, but can you prove that? It's the DOJ. Were you not listening to how corrupt the DOJ has been since Trump was nominated?

Again, "widespread voter fraud," the favorite catch phrase of the Democrats and Never-Trumpers, is not the only way that the results of an election can be unfairly influenced. Nor is the absence of proof of widespread fraud proof of the absence of widespread fraud.

You can accuse Trump of lying about widespread voter fraud because he hasn't proven it to your satisfaction. But you're not claiming to be a journalist, from whom more objectivity is expected.

That's your opinion.

Here's what the supposedly unbiased wiki says about Stacy Abrams' claims of an illegitimate election:

In April 2021, a judge allowed some claims in the legal challenge to proceed while rejecting others.[72] In October 2022, a federal judge ruled against Fair Fight on the remaining claims, finding that Georgia's voting regulations did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.[74][75][76] According to the judge, the case "resulted in wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation and culminated in what is believed to have been the longest voting rights bench trial in the history of the Northern District of Georgia."[71][77][78] Over the course of the lawsuit, Fair Fight raised $61 million and paid millions to Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, Abrams's campaign chair.[71]

Since losing the election, Abrams has repeatedly said that the election was not fairly conducted[79] and has declined to call Kemp the legitimate governor of Georgia.[80] Abrams has since said that she won the election and that the election was "stolen from the voters of Georgia", claims that election law expert Richard L. Hasen said lacked sufficient evidence.[81] Her position is that Kemp, who oversaw the election in his role as Secretary of State, had a conflict of interest and suppressed turnout by purging nearly 670,000 voter registrations in 2017, and that about 53,000 voter registrations were pending a month before the election.[79][82] She has said, "I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election."[79]

On November 9, 2018, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that its investigation of the 2018 statewide elections in Georgia had found "no evidence ... of systematic malfeasance – or of enough tainted votes to force a runoff election".[83] A USA Today fact check noted that the actions Kemp's office took during the election "can be explained as routine under state and federal law"; political scientist Charles S. Bullock III said there is "not much empirical evidence supporting the assertion that Kemp either suppressed the vote or 'stole' the election from Abrams."[84]

According to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, Abrams has variously claimed that she "won" the election, that the election was "rigged", that it was "stolen", that it was not "free and fair", and that Kemp had "cheated". Kessler said that "Abrams played up claims the election was stolen until such tactics became untenable for anyone who claims to be an advocate for American democratic norms and values".[85]

I wonder if you are bright enough to understand the difference between wiki presenting what Abrams actually said, and also presenting what other people said about what she said, rather than making purportedly factual statement such "Biden supported Abrams' false denial of Kemp's victory."

Actually, I take it back. I am confident that you are bright enough to understand the difference. I wonder if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.

Was Kemp fairly elected in 2018? Was he the legitimate governor of Georgia?

If you know the FBI was involved in executing the attempted coup, why hasn't anyone presented that proof in court?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you know the FBI was involved in executing the attempted coup, why hasn't anyone presented that proof in court?

What good would presenting proof of the obvious fact that the FBI was involved in the January 6th protests do any side in a court case?

Proof that the FBI had paid informants dressed as Trump supporters on the ground and in the Capitol prior to the riots starting might do someone some good. How to prove that when the FBI stonewalls that information?






If you are really interested in information presented in court about the FBI's involvment in Jan 6, here's a source for you:

Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant (Published 2021)

A member of the far-right Proud Boys texted his F.B.I. handler during the assault, but maintained the group had no plan in advance to enter the Capitol and disrupt the election certification.

www.nytimes.com

But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

At the same time, the new information is likely to complicate the government’s efforts to prove the high-profile conspiracy charges it has brought against several members of the Proud Boys.

On Jan. 6, and for months after, the records show, the informant, who was affiliated with a Midwest chapter of the Proud Boys, denied that the group intended to use violence that day. In lengthy interviews, the records say, he also denied that the extremist organization planned in advance to storm the Capitol. The informant’s identity was not disclosed in the records.

The records describing the informant’s account of Jan. 6 — excerpts from his interviews and communications with the F.B.I. before, during and after the riot — dovetail with assertions made by defense lawyers who have argued that even though several Proud Boys broke into the Capitol, the group did not arrive in Washington with a preset plot to storm the building.

They also raise new questions about the performance of the F.B.I. in tracking the threat from far-right groups like the Proud Boys.

The new congress will want to investigate to determine whether Jan 6th riot was primarily a result of FBI incompetence or primarily a result of FBI intent. To conduct that investigation, in order to serve their oversight function, they must have straightforward and fulsome answers from the FBI leadership.

 

[BULLDOG]

What good would presenting proof of the obvious fact that the FBI was involved in the January 6th protests do any side in a court case?

Proof that the FBI had paid informants dressed as Trump supporters on the ground and in the Capitol prior to the riots starting might do someone some good. How to prove that when the FBI stonewalls that information?






If you are really interested in information presented in court about the FBI's involvment in Jan 6, here's a source for you:

Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant (Published 2021)

A member of the far-right Proud Boys texted his F.B.I. handler during the assault, but maintained the group had no plan in advance to enter the Capitol and disrupt the election certification.

www.nytimes.com

But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

At the same time, the new information is likely to complicate the government’s efforts to prove the high-profile conspiracy charges it has brought against several members of the Proud Boys.

On Jan. 6, and for months after, the records show, the informant, who was affiliated with a Midwest chapter of the Proud Boys, denied that the group intended to use violence that day. In lengthy interviews, the records say, he also denied that the extremist organization planned in advance to storm the Capitol. The informant’s identity was not disclosed in the records.

The records describing the informant’s account of Jan. 6 — excerpts from his interviews and communications with the F.B.I. before, during and after the riot — dovetail with assertions made by defense lawyers who have argued that even though several Proud Boys broke into the Capitol, the group did not arrive in Washington with a preset plot to storm the building.

They also raise new questions about the performance of the F.B.I. in tracking the threat from far-right groups like the Proud Boys.

The new congress will want to investigate to determine whether Jan 6th riot was primarily a result of FBI incompetence or primarily a result of FBI intent. To conduct that investigation, in order to serve their oversight function, they must have straightforward and fulsome answers from the FBI leadership.

Let me get this straight. You say the Jan. 6 insurrection was an operation enacted by the FBI to install Trump as President. and the US court system is also part of the scheme, and your proof of all of this is some Proud Boy snitch who suddenly came up with all this information as he was facing charges for his part in the insurrection, and you learned about all of this from anti-Biden sites on the internet? It's good to see you aren't depending on flimsy evidence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me get this straight. You say the Jan. 6 insurrection was an operation enacted by the FBI to install Trump as President. and the US court system is also part of the scheme, and your proof of all of this is some Proud Boy who suddenly came out with all this information as he was facing charges for his part in the insurrection, and you learned about all of this from anti-Biden sites on the internet? It's good to see you aren't depending on flimsy evidence.

retard he said no such thing the riot was orchestrated by them to get Trump in trouble.

 

[BULLDOG]

retard he said no such thing the riot was orchestrated by them to get Trump in trouble.

Thank you for the correction. I'll note that you have no disagreement with the rest, though. I strive to fully understand exactly what he was saying. Those Senators who voted to disallow the Electoral College vote even after the insurrection, were they knowing participants of the FBI insurrection, or were they just stupid dupes who fell for it?