Printable View
There is likely to be huge voter suppression even by US standards. Even if Trump loses he is not likely to simply hand over the reins of power. There is nothing he isn't capable of- we have already seen the new federal force snatching people off the streets. the police are out of control in many places. It's full, unashamed fascism.
Things could get a lot worse in the US before they get better. The only hope is that he is trounced so badly that even he can't argue it.
I think it's still Biden's to lose - his lead in the polls has been steady, at a level that was Clinton's upper ceiling four years ago, which she couldn't hold on to for any length of time. Although I think it is reassuring, worrying and frustrating at the same time. Reassuring in that as time goes by it becomes more and more likely that he will carry this sort of lead into the election and that, combined with better management of the Electoral College, should ensure a solid victory; worrying because a couple of points shift could lead to it becoming a nail-biter again. And frustrating because it's probably not quite enough to turn states like Texas, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa and hand out the landslide defeat he deserves, which might cause proper soul-searching within the Republican party.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
That is the big worry of course, and protestors on the street is a big possibility. The hope here is that all legal challenges can be resolved quickly and that the military is true to its vow to uphold the Constitution, rather than taking political sides - if that happens, then those protests are not likely to prevent or significantly delay the passing of power. Also, I know where you're coming from Mr. A, but it is a really bad sign that the main defence against an unfair challenge to the election results is that Biden has to trounce Trump to win - 270 Electoral College votes with a plurality of any size in states he wins (subject to recounts) should be enough if there is no real evidence of significant voter fraud. Although the Democrats should already be preparing their legal briefs regarding voter suppression already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Well I may have spoken too soon given the latest controversy over his alleged remarks regarding fallen soldiers. We'll have to wait and see whether enough of that sticks, or simply falls into the fake news abyss.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
That aside however, I just think the protests and riots have gone on for so long now that they'll play into his hands come November. America is into full on culture war territory and I believe there's a significant proportion of the American population that the polls just don't reach or reflect - the silent Trump voter/growing anti-Democrat party voter. In other words...don't trust the polls.
Lots more stories to come between now and election day, and the polls will ebb and flow accordingly. Right now Trump is over the coals for his comments on soldiers, but it'll be Biden's turn next. There's always another scandal or slur to sling.
I wonder about where the votes will come from. Who will vote for Trump that didn't vote last time - I cannot imagine he has won over many new voters over the last 4 years. His base will still be there though.
Will Biden pick up all of those who voted for Clinton? There is also a base that will vote Democrat no matter what, but how many beyond that?
And it will all come down to a few states, and even a few pockets within states, that determine the overall result. And the locations of those pockets are only really known in hindsight.
Yep, he's just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize so that'll give him a bounce. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
318 nominees this year so far. He was nominated by the same Norwegian right-wing politician that nominated him two years ago. It doesn't seem to be that big a story in the USA.
US media propaganda is alive and well and its tentacles have reached all the way to Ireland. Truly delusional take on what's happening in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
The evidence is very clearly there- I have seen multiple examples of horrendous police behaviour and there are plenty more out there too. Do you really think it is not happening?
It was probably the "full, unashamed fascism" comment which spurred the reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Trumpists are irredeemable lads. The best way of dealing with them is to ignore them completely. The site providers a function for that very feature.
I can think of one obvious case lately, and one from last year or the year before. But I would be glad to compare notes. While we're on the topic, can you tell me about any 'horrendous behavior' against police lately?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
There are over 200 videos on this twitter thread alone. https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/st...95872057950208
I have seen plenty of twitter feeds, but an awful lot of them lack context. Having said that, do you have any other twitter threads you'd like to share? Like perhaps the barricading of police officers into their stations and the setting alight of these buildings by Antifa and BLM, with the officers inside? That's happened more than once this summer. Or perhaps the footage of police standing there like sheep (on the orders of their city mayors not to engage) and being hit by all manner of missiles? Do you have any of those twitter feeds? Did you want to share the fact that some 3000 police officers have been injured since June? Or do you have a count of the police officers killed this summer (I think it's 4 right now but I gave up counting)? And what about the 2 officers shot by snipers the other night, or the two Los Angeles officers, sitting in a squad car a couple of weekends ago when they were both shot by an assailant, with no provocation at all. And the ensuing blocking of the entrance to the hospital where the ambulance was headed with the injured officers. And the "I hope you pigs die" chants (or words to that effect) by those wonderful BLM/Antifa types outside the hospital in LA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
AND TO THINK THE PREMIER LEAGUE IN ENGLAND KNEELS DOWN EVERY WEEKEND TO SUPPORT THESE ANARCHISTS?
Look we can all agree that what happened to George Floyd was wrong, way wrong. It was murder. The whole world agreed. But that is the only case that the whole world agreed upon. Jacob Blake - we were sold a bill of lies about that case. Ditto Breonna Taylor. Ditto Trayvon Martin and of course the case that spawned "Hands Up Don't Shoot" - Michael Brown of Ferguson Missouri. Only problem is that "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was a lie. It never happened. So says the court transcripts.
Breonna Taylor is the case in the news right now. But America has been lied to by the media for approximately six months about this case - she was not shot in her bed, she herself was on the warrant and wanted for questioning about her ex-boyfriend who was a drug dealer and dealing out of her home. Did she deserve to die? No, not at all. But she made some horrible choices in her life - and that's what led to her death. She lived with a drug dealer. She ditched him and hooked up with a guy who shot through a closed door and hit a police officer in the leg. Shooting through a closed door and hitting a police officer is not going to come to a good conclusion. But the CNN's and ABC's of the world will work day and night to bury those facts.
Looking at the big picture. Most of the blue (democrat) states in America want to defund the police (surely to God you can see the insanity in that?). And on top of that they want to take away people's right to protect themselves (ie with their own firearms). Does any of that make sense - no police, anarchists running riot in the streets and the regular Joe has to stand there with his family and turn the other cheek? America has burned this summer, from Minneapolis to Atlanta, from Seattle to New York. Hopefully you can see that the country is headed in a very very bad direction with Antifa and BLM pulling all the strings with the media and the Democrat party?
You're using the word defund. I do not think you know what it means
Defund - ie. take money away from.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
In New York, for example, the mayor has decided to take something like a billion (or a billion and a half?) dollars away from the NYPD and give it (according to the purported plan anyway) to community causes. The NYPD, with a force of 49,000 officers, recently had its whole undercover unit (some 600 detectives) disbanded as part of the 'defunding'. Retirements of police officers across the country are at a record level. Combine that with the 'no bail' initiative in many American cities, and we see the vast majority of offenders right back on the street the day they commit their crimes. Why? Because there is no more cash bail. Apparently, you just sign the paperwork and agree to show up for your court date and that's it. It's basically a 'get out of jail card' for the criminals. Needless to say - crimes of all description have gone through the roof in NYC and elsewhere and many in the black communities (including Al Sharpton) are now calling for more police presence rather than less.
Minneapolis was the first American city to come up with this 'initiative'. Their reasoning in the aftermath of George Floyd was 'policing is too heavy-handed and too racially motivated' and why can't we have councillors and mediators go to these crime scenes to peacefully talk to the perpetrators? The police have been likened to Nazis by the Minneapolis City Council and the vote to defund them there was almost unanimous if I remember correctly. Can't make this up, but last week the spokesperson for the Minneapolis City Council wondered aloud why crime is rising so drastically in the city at the same time as asking 'Where are all the police?'.
I would like to think Tets that you know of the goings-on in Portland? Pretty sad if you don't yet totally understandable at the same time, because family members I speak to in Ireland do not have access to American news and therefore have no clue what's going on.
Aside from all of the above, we can look for the riots, looting and burning to ramp up in the coming weeks, all with the backdrop of less and less police. It is full steam ahead for BLM and Antifa now to discredit the 'too Catholic' Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett and they'll also be doing everything in their power to stop DT from being reelected.
Why has the mayor taken 1.5 billion from the police budget? It's not down to the Tax take in NYC being down nearly 10 Billion is it? I wonder what caused that? That is some shortfall. Is there any pandemic or major event causing budgets to take a hit. I must do some research.
I love the way he has taken that money and given it to community causes though. You've taken a truth, turned it into a half truth and completed the trick with a nugget of complete fantasy at the end. Your last 2 posts are quite the read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
So because of her choices years ago, clearly the police have no duty of care to her when they enter her apartment and resistance in the confusion must be met with overwhelming lethal force without accountability... after all, she's not a white vigilante gunning people down in the street - he gets to walk past the police tank. What's that, black people? Black Lives Matter? How dare you!? All Lives Matter!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
No half-truths or fantasy, just the facts. I promise you I am not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or anyone else's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
I'm quite confused Sam on what you mean in your reply. I had heard a version of what happened to Breonna Taylor, but it was nothing like what actually came out of the Grand Jury last Tuesday. My point is that the media led the country to believe a certain narrative about Breonna Taylor and it was nothing like what really happened - from what I'm told RTE and BBC do the same thing from time to time? Bottom line is there is a media-driven war on the police in the US right now because racial strife keeps the masses at each other's throats. But those people who are suffering the most are those in the inner city black communities (as Al Sharpton has quite rightly said). What is your reference to Trayvon Martin about?
In fairness, 'Defund the Police' is a fairly stupid and (I guess deliberately) antagonistic slogan for an idea to take away certain responsibilities (and accompanying funding) from the police and involve more suitable professions instead.
You NEVER post facts, and you NEVER back up ANY of your nonsense with ANY decent links. EVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I never post facts???Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
I have posted NOTHING BUT FACTS.
As I said before I have no wish to lie or deceive anyone on this forum. I have watched it with my own eyes every night for the last several months.
Our attempts at a civilized discussion have unfortunately come to an end.
And the links?
You have posted nothing but your own opinion. When pressed your sources have been a mix of links to right wing propaganda sites (thedailycaller), right wing conspiracy theorists (joel gibbert) or youtube videos with no sources. Whatever you are watching with your own eyes every night is deceiving you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Enjoy the tax returns.
My point is that the attitude you showed in the paragraph I quoted is the exact reason why Black Lives Matter exists - all the blame on the dead black person, none on the police for their actions, especially if you can show that the dead black person wasn't perfect (oh by the way, ditto for Trayvon Martin-I just had to go eat before I made that point). And when they see a rifle-toting double-murdering white fascist vigilante being ushered to safety, then of course the Black Community thinks the deck of law and order is stacked against them, with all-too-often fatal consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
And if you really want to see the rot that has set in to elements of American policing, just look at the Masai Ujiri incident (which thankfully didn't lead to serious injury, but for a moment looked like it could)
I have a distinct recollection of posting links/sources on here before on American Politics only to be ridiculed for referring to Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Jeff Kuhner etc as my sources. Do you really want me to go through that charade again? I watch TV in the late afternoon and evening and listen to talk radio during the day. Why would I go online to look for "links" for the TV shows I have already seen. Do they exist? You tell me? In addition, I was also told at one point not to post links but to summarize the content of the links instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
I think I've said this before, but there is never any problem with any of us posting our thoughts on Irish football - I take anyone who posts on here about football at their word and the same courtesy has been shown to me. But when it comes to the subject of American politics that trust we had in ourselves all of a sudden goes out the window.
I can go scouring youtube etc for links to the TV shows I have watched and spend the next couple of days bombarding this forum with links that may or may not hold the content of what I have watched on TV every night. is that what you want? Or maybe we should do the following: how about the lad who has called me out for spreading half-truths and fantasy (translation - lies) proves me wrong. Everything I have posted over the last couple of days is a true account of what I have watched on TV, I promise you. But he has called out my credibility, let him take piece by piece what I have said and disprove it.
But that's the point Mark - listening to radio shows and Tucker Carlson and repeating what they say is not adequate back up when making a statement of fact. If Tucker Carlson says the NYC are deliberately defunding the Police - that is only his opinion. It’s not a fact. Tucker Carlson ( only using him as an example ) could be the most honest person in the world - but when he says something in the setting that he does, then he is not stating a fact ; he is coming to his own conclusion, his own opinion. Say the same thing about CNN or NBC or any of them. It’s the exact same with talk radio. People go on those shows - Democratic or Republican with their own agenda. It’s up to yourself to decide what you believe or what you don’t believe but you can’t quote them as fact after. You may believe that the NYC is defunding the police deliberately but the fact of the matter is the NYC overall tax take is down over 9 billion as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic and therefore cuts are inevitable. That’s just one example. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/n...pd-budget.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
The rules are stricter in the Politics forum because unlike football – this is real life. Football is just a game ffs. Breonna Taylor got shot 7 times – do you really think discussing that is the same thing as having an opinion over who should lead the line against Slovakia next month – McGoldrick or Robinson? I mean it will probably be Idah anyway and we’ll both be wrong but seriously – come on like.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
How about maybe have a think about what you post, before you post, and maybe if you make assumptions and statements you have a look online for information to back-up your points of view. In my opinion that is all any reasonable person would ask for. Your last 4 or 5 posts on this forum are completely unreasonable and are good enough on their own to see you kicked off this forum for good. It’s up to yourself. You are still entitled to your opinion, but if you believe in something enough you should be able to back it up with credible information. It’s not up to others to disprove what you say. The onus is on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Defund VAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
Please report posts that contain claims without evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Minneapolis now regretting decision to defund the police
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/u...at-pledge.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxGDhiy18_cQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Story about defunding the NYPD
BLM is now a political partyQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7aQ02YX7qo
Another story about defunding policeQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4tkQ0S5oa0
Police speaking about Portland riotsQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMe2hou_sgE
69th straight night of rioting in Portland - now over 100Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ecoxdNX24g
As recently as last week Tucker Carlson's own network that you should take anything he says with a degree of skepticism.
Defunding does work - https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/09/u...rnd/index.html
I watched your video Tets and the police officer appears genuine and sincere. But I would like to know if his actions have resulted in a trust between both parties. I have seen police in my neck of the woods do the same thing - talking to and mingling with the peaceful protesters (a very important term because most of these protesters are not even remotely peaceful). The optics look good for a moment or two but the next day the protestors are pelting police with rocks and walloping officers in the back of the head with a baseball bat (please don't send me looking for the link - just take my word for something I saw on the TV last week).Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
And in case you don't know it, practically every historic statue in every major city in the US has been torn down or destroyed by BLM / Antifa in recent months.
Getting back to Tucker. He is highest in the ratings of any news analyst on American TV. There are millions of viewers watching him every night. There are mountains of money and a million trap doors of litigation hanging on his every word every night. He is not just some smuck on the TV who spouts off every night. He and his team of researchers have to get things right because his credibility and the credibility of the network is riding on it. If ratings are the currency by which the media lives, then CNN is on life support. Their ratings have plummeted horribly in recent years.
Your post said I should take anything Tucker Carlson says with a degree of scepticism. I'm sorry but I cannot agree (I assume you have watched his shows?). He is a beacon of light in a sea of lies and deception on American TV - and if truth is told he may not have too long left on Fox as the network appears to be leaning ever so slightly towards George Soros's dollars.
CNN's ratings recently hit a 40 year high - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-year-history/Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I said Carlson's own network said it, it was in a law case that was settled last weekQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Here's the official court documents - https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ox-Opinion.pdf
From page 12
His own employers are saying that, based on his reputation, you shouldn't take what he says seriouslyQuote:
Fox persuasively argues, given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes.
I suppose the operative word on CNN's ratings is 'recently'. I know they had half-decent numbers a few years ago, and then they dropped. And then as 'recently' as this past year they were at about 900,000 viewers for prime time shows as opposed to Fox which was about (I think so don't quote me) 13 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Bottom line on American media - when you live in a country where the mainstream media actively promoted the lie that DT colluded with Russia and sold that to the American people for 2.5 years and effectively held the country to ransom, and where an opposing network shines a light on the origins of their investigation and shows you a whole different side to things (a side that the MSM never wants you to know about) - ie the Steele dossier and the FISA warrants etc, you tend to believe the Tucker Carlson's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world (Limbaugh on the air for 30 plus years with between 50 and 60 million listeners/subscribers would lead one to believe that if he's not telling the truth he wouldn't have lasted that long).
I could go on and on about CNN and the MSM - things like the reporting of mass shootings with the requisite shock and horror (which is fine and appropriate) but then totally ignoring the carnage in Chicago (which in itself is a weekly mass shooting) and others parts of the country. Things like reporting that the president said the KKK were good people in the aftermath of Charlottesville or that he said "All Mexicans are rapists" or more recently when they said he called the military losers and bums. It would be pure suicide for him to say any of those things but the MSM don't care. They'll throw mud at the wall and hope it sticks.
There is money to be made, plenty of it, and power to be gained by crying racism in America.
But one of the telling factors on media deception for me comes in my interactions with family and friends. Of course politics is a taboo subject, but when it does come up you generally give your two cents. What I find is that instead of debating you on the details of a particular topic my liberal family members don't know the first thing about the topic at hand - and that's because they have never heard it. And that's because the censorship and propaganda of the likes of CNN / ABC etc is working quite well on the masses.
Fox were on 4.2 million in March - https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/category/ratings/ - and averaged 3.6 million in August - https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoy.../#126a4ce54ce5Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Note - if CNN were up 15% then this past year they were averaging 1.46 million, not 900,000Quote:
Fox News Channel finished first in prime time, with an average total audience of 3.637 million viewers—up 49 percent from the same month one year ago. MSNBC was second, with 2.194 million viewers (up 48 percent) and CNN finished third with 1.685 million viewers (up just 15 percent year-over-year). Among viewers 25-54, the key demographic valued by advertisers, Fox News was number one in prime with 638,000 viewers (up 70 percent from a year ago), followed by CNN (454,000 viewers—an increase of 16 percent from one year ago) and MSNBC (357,000 viewers—up 61 percent).
The investigation concluded that Russia had interfered in the election, and is available here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Either Trump knew about it, in which case he's guilty, or he didn't, in which case you'd have to ask how he didn't.Quote:
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."
In the above, Carlson averages around 4 million viewers. According to various sources, Limbaugh has around 20 million subscribers to his radio show.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides" in Charlotteville. Here's a video of him saying it, at 1:42. White supremacists marched in Charlotteville. Is he saying they are fine people?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Trump said the Mexicans that were coming into the country were bringing drugs, were bringing crime, and are rapists. Here's a video of him saying it
Glad you asked the question "Is he saying they (the white supremacists) are fine people?" Because the answer is no. The very fine people he was referring to were the peaceful protesters on different sides of an ideological divide in Charlottesville that day. One group wanted to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee and rename the park and went about their business peacefully. The others (the conservative group) were protesting against that and were also peaceful in their pursuits. And those groups were who Trump was referring to. Antifa and the white supremacists showed up later and it all went south. But it is all explained quite succinctly in the following 6-minute video - criminal really that the MSM pushed a narrative which has caused so much division in this country, just like the "Hands Up Don't Shoot" lie did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-charlottesville-lie/
Regarding the Mexicans. They do bring drugs into the country, mountains of drugs every year. And they also bring crime with them. And regarding them being rapists - you should know that there are stories of Guatemalan, El Salvadoran, Honduran mothers giving their young daughters contraceptive pills to take with them on their journey across the desert to the US. Why, because there are accounts coming back to them of the rape of these kids by the Mexican traffickers. Donald Trump would have been given that information by the border patrol agents, but it has apparently been happening long before Trump came to power. Are all Mexicans rapists? No, they are not. But Donald Trump never said that all Mexicans are rapists, something he is accused of all the time by those in America who have been fed the lie.
Ultimately the liberal media (who are the mouthpieces of the Democrat party) want to sew division among the people. Because a divided people is easier to control. And as for the Republicans - 95 per cent of them are just as bad. They are supposed to be the anti-Democrats but they are also beholden to their billionaire donors and lobbyists.
[...]
Addressing some of your other points here:
Limbaugh, you say, has 20 million subscribers. I don't dispute that. He may have 20 million subscribers, but he has 50 - 60 million listeners.
Regarding Trump and Russia, the charge was that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. You are referring, I think, to the fact that the Russians interfered in the election (I think that's what you're saying Tets, please correct me if I'm wrong). The Russians did interfere in the election to the tune of about $100 K for social media messaging and commercials. No one disputes that. And they'll be doing the same again this time around along with China and possibly be spending even more money. But again the charge was that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians, something which just isn't true. And about the Special Counsel investigation, do you remember Robert Mueller saying he didn't know who Christopher Steele was, when he was asked to explain his findings after the report came out? I'll say one thing for you Tets. You actually know who Christopher Steele is and you actually know about the Steele dossier. That puts you ahead of about 300 million Americans.
PragerU - dangerous crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU
Calls itself a university but:Quote:
PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic, and philosophical topics from an American conservative or right-wing perspective.
Likes to target teenagers not adults:Quote:
PragerU is not a university or academic institution, and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited by any recognized body]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/u...niversity.html
.Quote:
Dennis Prager believes teenagers are more open to conservative ideas than millennials. With PragerU, he’s making a play to get around their professors
Mark, fair play for keeping a reasonably civil tone but please keep the casual Mexican racism in check. You provided 0 sources again to back up some very inflammatory opinions above. I live in a Mexican dominated community and they are lovely people, undeserving of your generalizations. Their music is ****e mind....
Most importantly though - Why do you think Fox is reliable because of viewership numbers? You think they are held to journalistic standards because they have more eyes on them? You know MSNBC and CNN combined have more viewers right? And you'd lump them in your category of MSM with similar views so why don't they get held to the same standards as Fox?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...uarter-1301220
Here's a quick example of how viewership might not work for you as a sign of truth with another large media source reporting the opposite of what you've been told, evidently on Fox:
You've said most of the protests are violent yes? That's nonsense. You've believed a narrative based on a handful of Youtube clips and a few paid talking heads on Fox who know their audience and want ratings so they aim for stoking prejudice and fear in a scared and prejudiced country. Sure I could send you as many clips of unwarranted police brutality or obvious agitators out there trying to incite violence at peaceful protests. I've been at 3 protests and seen 0 violence, once as part of the protest and twice just stuck in the traffic they created. There's a first hand account but more reliably (for you) should be Time.com reporting that 93% of the protests are are peaceful.
Time is the largest weekly magazine in the world with a viewership in the US of 20m. Its online arm alone get's 27.1M unique visitors. So it would be under the same scrutiny as Fox by your logic yeah? How could they come up with such a different worldview to yours? Time is owned by Marc Benioff, a previous Republican and now Independent who has donated to candidates from multiple parties but has moved away from making political statements since buying Time. So hardly a puppet of the ever-powerful-but-not-actually-in-power Democrats?
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/
So you are being fed a narrative by your exclusive diet of right wing opinion sites and "news analysts" and you haven't sought to question it at any point despite the well known issues Fox has had with sticking to the facts:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2...fox-news-lies/ - there's a fact check of a fact check about the lies that regularly pop up as facts on Fox. Feel free to fact check the fact check.
Now if you want to discuss the 7% of protests that are violent I'd be happy to. As a man who gets his news from youtube videos, I'd ask how angry you'd be if, for example, your family members, friends or those in your community were being gunned down without cause by the people paid to protect them and you were being shown videos of the murders over and over again. Might you get a bit angry? In a cauldron of tear gas, militarized police, inflammatory rhetoric from the president and heightened tensions, might you throw an auld shoe here or there?
I'd agree that the media in America is generally biased one way or the other and certainly uses fear to drive ratings so I'm not exactly sure why you think Rupert Murdoch's Fox is any different given how afraid of Mexicans and BLM it seems to have made you. Why wouldn't you attempt to find unbiased sources given how politicized and polarized everything is here and why do you trust everything you watch on tv given that you think the MSM (which oddly doesn't include Fox for you despite your knowledge of how truly mainstream it is here) is controlled by one political party? Would it not be more effective to read a wider spectrum of sources and engage a bit of critical thinking than to sit in front of what's being fed to you and accept it as fact without concern?
As you said before - "Everything I have posted over the last couple of days is a true account of what I have watched on TV, I promise you." - I believe you. Might be time to step away from the TV for a bit.
PragerU have claimed that straight people cannot contract HIV, lied about climate change, and has had numerous videos restricted, or removed, by YouTube for breaking their terms and conditions of use. They have no credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
According to these studies, there is no connection between a rise the number of immigrants in an area and crimeQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...ants-and-crime
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tion-myth.html
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...inal-immigrant
I can find no such stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I would like to see some of these accusations. All I can find are people debating the claim he made that the Mexicans coming to the US are rapists that I posted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
According to this - http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-audiences/ - Limbaugh averages 15 million listeners a week. Various sources claim he peaked with 20 million in the 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
This is the quote from Mueller, from here https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...liar-with-that Going on this, he knows who Steele is, he just can't speak about the dossier, and was outside the scope of his investigationQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Quote:
I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called 'Steele Dossier.
"PragerU have claimed that straight people cannot contract HIV, lied about climate change, and has had numerous videos restricted, or removed, by YouTube for breaking their terms and conditions of use. They have no credibility."Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
They have no credibility? Tets you are better than that. They have millions of viewers of their videos and they have tons of credibility. You speak about HIV and climate change etc, but what about Charlottesville? Are you telling me that in that video they are lying about Charlottesville? The guy spells it out plainer than daylight. Let's do this: Can you send me a link (now I sound like you) from a major American media channel of DT saying that white supremacists or the KKK are good people? You know he didn't say it just like he didn't say "All Mexicans are rapists." He wouldn't have lasted another day in politics had he said those words. The Republicans, useless bunch that they are, even they would have stepped up and called for a vote of no confidence in their president, if he had uttered those words.
I was going to tell you of breaking news in America tonight which claims that in 2016 Hillary Clinton approved a plan with Russian intelligence to set up Trump. It is just breaking so take that for what it is - I'm sure there will be more on it tomorrow. But for now, and tonight (as of 7pm EST) everyone is looking forward to the big debate.
Have a little faith, mate. I am trying to keep you updated with things as they happen.