The Five Components of Biden's Victory in 2020

[whoisit]

I'm not about to pay $14.99 for the movie but I can make the election short and sweet,'2000 Mules, several million illegal voters some dead and even some dogs voted.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If you don't consider Fox News to be a new channel, we agree.

Fox is a news channel. Watch the News Shows on Fox if you want to see factual reporting. If you prefer invective, punditry, and polemics, you watch the opinion shows such as you presented as evidence that "Fox News Lies."

I understand why you don't get the difference, being an MSNBC devotee. Those kinds of networks have long since stopped making the distinction between opinion and fact. Their supposed news shows open and close with polemics and fill the time in bewtween with invective and punditry.

Do you have an example of a news anchor or reporter lying about Trump?

Like Fish in a barrel. I'll use text from the networks' websites so you don't have to wade through Youtube videos.

The most common method is to lie in the headline and only tell the truth several paragraphs down. It works on the rubes who are barely literate enough to read the headline and go post it on a message board, but will never bother to read further.

The headline:

2 Secret Service sources told CNN that Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6, partly confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony

The Secret Service sources, including one who heard the story directly from Trump's driver, corroborated much of Hutchinson's testimony under oath.

www.businessinsider.com

The Truth that you would have to scroll down to read:

"He had sort of lunged forward – it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," one of the Secret Service sources told CNN. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat – for what reason, nobody had any idea."

The other source, who said they had spoken directly with Trump's driver from that day, said they did not hear anything about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel, in line with the other agency member's recollection of conversations about the incident.

They did not corroborate her story of Trump grabbing the wheel, that story being impossible. They denied both the wheel grabbing and the assault. But the headline says that they "corroborated much of her story," and that is all that a person such as yourself would read.

You mean that since you don't nobody does?

I'm going by your own statement: "I know plenty of 'state' workers and they are pretty representative the the US with one exception, they think gov't can serve a positive benefit to society."

If thinking that gov't can serve a positive benefit is the exception, the norm is not thinking that government can serve a positive benefit.

Everywhere an election was investigated no fraud was found. Trump's Attorney General agreed.

He said "no widespread fraud." That there was fraud is disputed by almost no one. Unless you are there again "the exception."

If the GOP can't keep up with legal election procedures that is on them.

I almost missed that one.

I wasn't complaining about legal changes to state and local election laws, when the laws were passed by state legislatures and changed by state legislatures. That is what the Constitution calls for:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Legal rule changes made by lawmakers are easy to keep up with, since the lawmaking process is deliberative. I'm complaining about rules changes for expediency with COVID as an excuse, when those rules were changed by executives and judges, rather than by lawmakers, as the US Constitution calls for.

When Democratic governors and liberal judges change the rules with a goal to benefit Democrats, they are designed to be so sudden that the GOP cannot keep up.

 

[alang1216]

Fox is a news channel. Watch the News Shows on Fox if you want to see factual reporting. If you prefer invective, punditry, and polemics, you watch the opinion shows such as you presented as evidence that "Fox News Lies."

I understand why you don't get the difference, being an MSNBC devotee. Those kinds of networks have long since stopped making the distinction between opinion and fact. Their supposed news shows open and close with polemics and fill the time in bewtween with invective and punditry.


Like Fish in a barrel. I'll use text from the networks' websites so you don't have to wade through Youtube videos.

The most common method is to lie in the headline and only tell the truth several paragraphs down. It works on the rubes who are barely literate enough to read the headline and go post it on a message board, but will never bother to read further.

The headline:

2 Secret Service sources told CNN that Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6, partly confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony

The Secret Service sources, including one who heard the story directly from Trump's driver, corroborated much of Hutchinson's testimony under oath.

www.businessinsider.com

The Truth that you would have to scroll down to read:

"He had sort of lunged forward – it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don't know," one of the Secret Service sources told CNN. "Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat – for what reason, nobody had any idea."

The other source, who said they had spoken directly with Trump's driver from that day, said they did not hear anything about Trump trying to grab the steering wheel, in line with the other agency member's recollection of conversations about the incident.

They did not corroborate her story of Trump grabbing the wheel, that story being impossible. They denied both the wheel grabbing and the assault. But the headline says that they "corroborated much of her story," and that is all that a person such as yourself would read.

The headline from your link is "2 Secret Service sources told CNN that Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6, partly confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony". You said "The most common method is to lie in the headline and only tell the truth several paragraphs down". So far as I know, no one disputes the Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. Seems like you have it backwards, the headline was fact and any 'lies' were several paragraphs down.

He said "no widespread fraud." That there was fraud is disputed by almost no one. Unless you are there again "the exception."

There is always fraud but there is no reason to think the Dems are any worse than the GOP.

I almost missed that one.

I wasn't complaining about legal changes to state and local election laws, when the laws were passed by state legislatures and changed by state legislatures. That is what the Constitution calls for:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Legal rule changes made by lawmakers are easy to keep up with, since the lawmaking process is deliberative. I'm complaining about rules changes for expediency with COVID as an excuse, when those rules were changed by executives and judges, rather than by lawmakers, as the US Constitution calls for.

When Democratic governors and liberal judges change the rules with a goal to benefit Democrats, they are designed to be so sudden that the GOP cannot keep up.

First off, governors have the authority and obligation to react to emergency situations like Covid. Trump lost 60 lawsuits on this very issue. If making voting easier means more Dem votes that implies the previous rules disenfranchised Dem voters. Is that what you want to protect?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The headline from your link is "2 Secret Service sources told CNN that Trump angrily demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6, partly confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's explosive testimony". You said "The most common method is to lie in the headline and only tell the truth several paragraphs down". Seems like you have it backwards, the headline was fact and any 'lies' were several paragraphs down.

That is a bizarre interpretation. The headline is an attention grabber and the truth, if it comes, comes in the details closer to the end.

Are you seriously stating that you're OK with the mainstream media lying to you, so long as they don't lie in the headline? Is that because the headline is all you read?

So far as I know, no one disputes the Trump wanted to go to the Capitol.

I don't know of anyone who disputes that either. I don't know that it has been established by an actual witness, but maybe it has.

If that is not in question, then what was the "bombshell" in her testimony that the media insisted was there? Anything that was not hearsay, or already established? In fact, other than her name, etc., was any part of her testimony not either hearsay or already established?

There is always fraud but there is no reason to think the Dems are any worse than the GOP.

In 2020, a Democrat who literally hid in his basement as his main campaign strategy beat one of the most popular Republicans since Reagan. That is reason enough to suspect that all the unlawful changes the Dems made were responsible for the results.

First off, governors have the authority and obligation to react to emergency situations like Covid. Trump lost 60 lawsuits on this very issue. If making voting easier means more Dem votes that implies the previous rules disenfranchised Dem voters. Is that what you want to protect?

It made cheating easier while making voting easier. It was the cheating that helped the Dems. That is the fine line that we have to find between stopping cheating and not making voting too difficult. That's why we need common sense laws like voter ID, but not literacy tests. The best way to make it easy would be unlimited voting for anyone who shows up at the poll with no ID and no voter registration, and to allow unlimited mail-in ballots to be counted, even if the number of votes exceeded the number of people living in the precinct. That would make voting easy, but would open it wide for fraud.

That's what the Dems did. Not all of the lawsuits were about the COVID excused changes, and most of the cases were lost on procedural issues, not merits. Still, it was obvious that the judicial branch failed utterly to act to stop the out of control executives from usurping the powers of the legislatures. The judicial branch is nearly one hundred percent licensed lawyers and they are heavily liberal Democrats.

 

[alang1216]

Are you seriously stating that you're OK with the mainstream media lying to you, so long as they don't lie in the headline? Is that because the headline is all you read?

Absolutely not. I'm just not sure what lies are here. She said she heard these things second hand so it would be simple for the people she quoted to come forward and testify, under oath as she did, and her credibility would be seriously damaged.

I don't know of anyone who disputes that either. I don't know that it has been established by an actual witness, but maybe it has.

If that is not in question, then what was the "bombshell" in her testimony that the media insisted was there? Anything that was not hearsay, or already established? In fact, other than her name, etc., was any part of her testimony not either hearsay or already established?

She related that Trump knew the mob was armed and wanted to grant them access anyway. Again, easily denied by who she quoted. Until then it is valid evidence.

In 2020, a Democrat who literally hid in his basement as his main campaign strategy beat one of the most popular Republicans since Reagan. That is reason enough to suspect that all the unlawful changes the Dems made were responsible for the results.

Trump was immensely popular, no doubt and still is. He is also immensely unpopular, so much so that a ham sandwich might have beaten him.

It made cheating easier while making voting easier. It was the cheating that helped the Dems.

That may be true but there is NO evidence cheating helped the Dems, certainly not enough to change the outcome.

 

[j-mac]

That may be true but there is NO evidence cheating helped the Dems, certainly not enough to change the outcome.

This statement alone disqualify‘s you from any serious discussion