Trump (Page 11)
srbiddy09: David, your information is correct? Okay, then please prove that Obama was a "draft dodger" and also prove that the 2020 election was stolen.
danishian: alot of the lefts are lies and most of the right correct...notice I said alot means not every one is lies of the left and I said most not all of the right are correct or wrong... both sides are correct and both sides may be wrong....
KeithJ: biddy that IS why Rudy G. lost his law license because of his filings of fake election fraud crap THAT IS A FACT.
srbiddy09: David, I never said that ALL Republicans are bad or that ALL Democrats are good. That is called "binary thinking" and only simpletons subscribe to binary thinking.
srbiddy09: David, it is true that Rudy Giuliani lost his license to practice law in the state of New York. Do you dispute that?
danishian: if I post the prroof that Trump may have won the election will you delete it ... have to go now be back for the answer.....
KeithJ: ones like davidyncr are a threat to democracy trying to turn it into a Autocracy by thinking January 6th was the right thing believing Dump's lies .
srbiddy09: Keith, we all know that he is only going to post more nonsense from one or more of his fake far right news sites, probably one that has the word "patriot" in it. LOL
KeithJ: Real patriots DO NOT support a thing like January 6th or a blithering draft dodging wana be like Mussolini .
KeithJ: Benito Mussolini
Italian Socialist Party (1901–1914)
Fasces of Revolutionary Action (1914–1919)
Italian Fasces of Combat (1919–1921)
Republican Fascist Party (1943–1945) < < this last one really gets me LOL
danishian: srbiddy then you should delete Keith misinformational posts of youtube and others... to be fair
srbiddy09: David, I'm sorry you feel that way, but Trump's ties with the New York mafia have been investigated and documented by many writers, including Pulitzer Prize-winning author David Kay Johnston.
danishian: Debunkers Debunked: Who Fact-Checks The Fact-Checkers?https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/11/04/debunkers-debunked-who-fact-checks-fact-checkers-14378
By Alex Berezow, PhD — November 4, 2019
Credit: Public Domain/Wikipedia
I gave a lecture recently on debunking junk science for a class at the University of Washington called "Calling Bullsh**." As its not-so-subtle title suggests, the class teaches students how to recognize misinformation in our digital age.
One of the topics I touched on was the role that fact-checkers play in our online debates. Certainly, they can and do play a very constructive role. There are so many lies swirling around that professional fact-checking seems to be a necessary public good.
But, who fact-checks the fact-checkers? While that might seem like a silly question, the objectivity of fact-checking websites has already been called into doubt and for good reason. For example, an in-depth analysis by Matt Shapiro at the Paradox Project revealed that PolitiFact (the site that famously uses "pants on fire" as one of its ratings) is biased in its fact-checking.
The analysis makes several different arguments, but one of the more compelling ones is that the articles that debunk Republicans are longer than those that debunk Democrats. Why? Well, it comes down to a bit of chicanery:
"We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as 'mostly false' by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.
"Doing this takes time and many, many words."
Another popular website, Snopes (which got its start by debunking urban legends), bizarrely decided to debunk satire. Snopes appeared to be aiming the majority of its wrath toward one satire site in particular, the Babylon Bee, which happens to be published by conservative Christians.
Can Something Really Be "Mostly True" or "Half True"?
Another problem with fact-checking is the rating system. Fact-checkers like PolitiFact often conclude that statements are true, mostly true, half-true, mostly false, or false. But is such a classification even possible? In other words, can something really be "mostly true" or "half true"? The Babylon Bee captures this problem in a pretty funny headline:
If a politician said that the lost city of Atlantis has been discovered underneath Puget Sound, everybody would know he was lying. It's entirely absurd. But if a politician makes a false claim within a context that is mostly true, people are much more likely to believe it. In other words, the most effective lies are "mostly true."
Who Fact-Checks the Fact-Checkers?
Ultimately, fact-checking is a much more subjective enterprise than we would like it to be. Truth is real but sometimes difficult to ascertain, particularly when political ideologies and motivated reasoning are involved. To eschew these pitfalls, fact-checkers need to be keenly sensitive to such biases. Otherwise, fact-checkers will be seen as simply another manifestation of "fake news."
danishian: yes the fact-checkers you claim to be correct will be seen as simply another manifestation of " fake news" which you srbiddy and keith loves
danishian: RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Overall, we rate ACSH Right-Center Biased based on pro-business support and High for factual reporting due to adhering to the consensus of science on most issues and a clean fact check record.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
srbiddy09: Thanks for the link, David--but what does that article have to do with proving election fraud or proving that Obama was a draft dodger??
srbiddy09: David, do you realize that The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a science advocacy organization that focuses on food, nutrition, health, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biology, biotechnology, infectious disease, and the environment???
They have nothing whatsoever to do with analyzing election results.
srbiddy09: Also, David, you seem to have misread the article that you posted to "prove" your claims (which honestly doesn't surprise me). In essence, this short piece, written by Dr. Alex Berezow, addresses "fact checking" and discusses a few of the various "Fact Checking Websites" that can be found on the internet. However, nowhere in the article does it assert that the 2020 Election was rigged or that the Democrats disseminate false information. Dr. Berezow merely cautions us to beware of subjectivity amongst "fact checkers"--which strikes me as ironic considering how much faith you place in the nonsense published on far-right disreputable "news" websites.
Ultimately, I agree with Dr. Berezow. You should take his advice too and seriously consider the subjectivity of sites like Newsmax or any of the other ones that contain the word "patriot" in their name.
danishian: United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama, in an interview yesterday with ABC News political correspondent George Stephanopoulos, on his program This Week, lied about his registration for the Selective Service military draft. This is only the latest in a series of falsehoods and outright lies by Senator Obama and his campaign. But, knowing that his name means 'crooked', does this move actually surprise anyone? And, could this latest lie be an attempt to mask something even more sinister in Obama's past ... or America's future?