dynato
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by dynato
-
-
The plot thickens
-
4 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:
I used to think the Supreme Court would take all election cases - now not sure because there has been no accusations of fraud much less evidence presented to date. (according to the federal judge)
The way I read it, the supreme court has two options to give Trump a victory in this election cycle. 1. Rule mail in ballots unconstitutional due to the discrepancies between all states and throw out tens of millions of ballots. 2. Give the power of deciding who is president fully to the electors of each state and take it away from the voters and hope that electors in states where the popular vote went to Biden ignore the will of the people and give the electoral votes to Trump.
Both are highly unlikely, but seem within the realm of possibilities. I think both decisions won't need evidence of fraud or it to happen.
-
Just now, Bison06 said:
What are your best sources of information internationally. I’m genuinely looking for a place where an unbiased view of events can be found. As for now, I look at foxnews, cnn and msnbc and am forced to believe that the truth lies somewhere in between all of these news sources’ BS.
I can't look at CNN or Fox for political news. CNN was the boy who cried about trump. Fox was the boy who cried about CNN. Feels like they are in on it together for content. So I feel better off cutting cable and not watching either network.
For international news sources: The Independent, BBC , Reuters (all pretty much UK/Canada based). Still a hint a bias, but they are more objective about US news since they are harder to influence. I have a friend in Finland who talks American politics with me too.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bison06 said:
As a general thought, do the left leaning folks in this discussion believe that misinformation campaigns exist at the highest levels in our country? If the answer is yes, do you then acknowledge that they exist across the board, left and right? If yes, how would you go about discerning true from false? Is it simply deciding to trust a certain news source or is there more to it than that for you?
Misinformation campaigns exist all across the board, left and right. News sources have largely become opinion networks and they face no liabilities for the false messages they share and damage they cause. Sadly false information spreads faster than indisputable truths. I've watched news slowly transition from starting with a mostly truthful message and then providing bias to confirm a networks position to a network starting with a heavy bias with a mostly false message to confirm a position for the consumer. Many people want to be told their biases are right and will ignore true information if it challenges their bias. Some networks have capitalized on this more than others. So how can you remove such bias in today's world to see what is true and what is false? Skip the "news sources" and go right to the primary source of the information if possible and analyze from there. Checking out independent sources from other countries can help remove internal bias too.
-
47 minutes ago, Goon said:
This came across my Twitter feed today. Apparently, published this story and then deleted it. Why?
The 3 page news article had almost no supporting evidence/references to prove their statement true. It was created by an individual, a student, who didn't put in enough effort to gain a collective scientific agreement that it was remotely true. So thus it was removed before it could be misconstrued as credible information.
-
8 minutes ago, 1972 said:
If it smells like a skunk looks, like a skunk, walks like a skunk....I'm going to assume it's a skunk
If you smell like a criminal, you look like a criminal, and you walk like a criminal, should we immediately assume you are a criminal? Or should we assume that you are a good person with a great track record until proven beyond a doubt otherwise?
-
10 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
Someone in the Twitter-verse is claiming PA sent out 1.8M absentee ballots, but received 2.5M absentee ballots.
I'm not finding the data on the PA SecState site to see for myself (because that's a hard claim to believe).
Help.
Looks like 3.1M ballots were requested, only 2.6M were returned. This is all I could find for now.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/
-
1
-
-
According to this new very accurate and unbiased poll our president is using, the widespread fraud is bigly true. He should have won 98.9% of the votes, had 152M votes in this years election and won all 538 electoral votes.
-
1
-
-
There's a system of checks and balances in our government for a reason. Trump does/says something questionable and the government checks it out. The balance is Trump did nothing wrong and so no action was taken against him and he remained in power the entire time. IMO it is to everyone's best interest to not frame checks as malicious unnecessary attacks, they are a good method of keeping politicians at least somewhat inline. If Biden starts firing people who oversee him and does blatantly shady stuff while president, or his family, I would want him investigated for it and removed from office if they have merit. I wouldn't want Dems to protect Biden at all costs and say "Republicans are being mean and unfair trying to take down our precious Biden :(".
-
13 minutes ago, bison73 said:
Why is that a concern for you considering the Dem tried to take Trump down starting right after the inauguration???
It is not a concern what so ever. Just would like to see how everyone is playing the game and if it changes. As in Trump was known to throw attacks against his own party if they didn't offer him undying loyalty, I am curious to see how this dynamic changes if he is no longer in power.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:
Daily more R publicly announce they accept Biden as the winner. By weeks end, T won't have many left standing.
I'm more interested in if more R's will denounce Trump's actions if Biden is announced winner. Especially since he would be in a position that holds no power over them. Will they continue the Trump Fraud train? Or will they remain silent and act as if fraud never happened?
-
Mr. Giuliani said in a statement that Ms. Powell “is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”
Kinda nice for someone to be both on the team and off the team pending on how much of an asset they are for you.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SiouxFan100 said:
Can someone please tell me why many of the trump’s attorneys dropped out?
For the same reasons as any other attorney dropping a case. They either have no evidence at all or insufficient evidence to win and prove their allegation, were being asked to perjure themselves to say they had indisputable undisclosed evidence and risk losing their license to practice law, promises of being paid fell through, had conflict of interests or personality conflicts.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, homer said:
FAA can not implement mask mandates from my understanding. They are not a health regulating authority.
Fair enough. The FAA does has influence on the actions of airlines at a minimum and has not taken a stance on masks. The CDC recommends, but does not mandate that airline passengers must wear masks. The CDC also does not impose a limit on air craft capacity either. So this leads me to believe they are consumer driven decisions by the airlines, as most of their other decisions are.
-
2 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:
Friday and where is the beef (fraud).
I admit every election has bad stuff but it’s time for the transition to proceed without trumps roadblocks.
All Trump needs to do is win a single case of fraud. Even if it's a fraudulent ballot voting for him, it will be enough to rally his followers to attack our democracy.
-
56 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
If lockdowns work why is a second needed?
It depends on the definition of work. Most of my family is still alive, I have my job, my finances improved, and I have not gotten COVID. So would you say the lock down worked for me or failed me?
-I don't believe the first lockdown was timed or applied correctly across most of America and was a complete over-reaction for many localities. It was a bad decision to do in Grand Forks when we had no cases to begin with. I said early on that we our reaction to covid should be based on local health care providers input and not political input. Now that it is coming down to local health care providers, people have PTSD because of what politicians have done and are overly resistive.
-
2 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Demand for all travel and ancillary services (especially voluntary and leisure) literally fell off a cliff, and as I recall, airline mask mandates were implemented across the board roughly simultaneously. So people flying HAD to fly, and they had NO choice about masks. Therefore, I don't think anyone has enough data to determine relative impact of any single factor, or cause and effect.
However, I stand on my hypothesis...that given the choice, there are consumers who will be drawn to the first airline that does not require masks.
It was no federal agency mandating masks though, it was left up to each private airline. From what I've found, the FAA did not mandate masks across all of the USA, the airlines themselves did. The masks were not implemented early on, they were implemented months into the pandemic (in like June just like Menards). It wasn't until airline implemented protective measures for consumers like masks and no middle seats, that they saw passenger counts and revenue rise again.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:
Seeing as likely none of us are airline executives, and the hypothetical was asked openly, I think we're in fair territory here.
I also think the market will eventually dictate. As soon as one airline goes maskless (mask optional), and experiences a significant revenue bump, there's your answer.
Of course, this model won't work locally, because one must have more than airline from which to choose.
Maybe the answer is mask and no-mask sections. Harken right back to the old days of smoking!
Markets are already driven by consumer choices, are they not? That would lead me to believe more people are consuming their product because masks are mandated and that revenue would dip if the airline switched their stance making masks optional. Once the risk, or perception of risk, from catching COVID has diminished, that is when I see it switching to masks being optional.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:
Should a passenger in an airplane be allowed to fly without a mask, and if so, do all passengers that think all should wear a mask when flying just not fly?
Isn't masking policy dictated by the company providing you the service and not the individuals consuming the service? If a company decides you must follow certain procedures, and you resist doing so, shouldn't you be the one that foregoes the luxury of consuming the service they provide you?
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Goon said:
That makes no sense. You have the internet Google it.
I asked your thoughts on Trump vs Obama. You derailed the conversation to compare Bush to Obama, instead of Trump to Obama. The article you linked even refers to the original research article from pew research I sent you. Trumps definition of deportations and apprehensions were the same as Obamas definition of deportations and apprehension, so they can be compared equally.
-
18 minutes ago, Goon said:
Please stop, Obama changed the way he counted deportations. Just change the language to make your case. From Liberal Snopes.
Just as the way you changed the language From Trump to Bush? Did the language on deportations change back after Obama left office?
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Goon said:
So it begins. That's what we need more illegals streaming across the southern border.
What are your thoughts on Obama deporting significantly more people per year on average than Trump has?
-
7 minutes ago, homer said:
So why write that people on here prefer no personal responsibility if you have read it?
Because many on this thread would throw personal responsibility out the window if it meant going back to how things were before 2020.
-
6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
Tear the band-aid off slow, or tear the band-aid off fast.
Either way the net is "one band-aid removed".
My question is: "What isn't getting done while you're slowly removing the band-aid?"
My answer is humans will prevail and progress regardless of the scenario chosen. The things that are not getting done now, will get done eventually. So why pursue a scenario that leads to more deaths earlier rather than later?
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
This rhetoric is nothing new unfortunately. Steve Bannon, Trump's former advisor, called for beheading and putting the FBI director and Fauci's heads on pikes. Giuliani said somebody needs to cut the head off of the Democratic party.