2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

100 to 1 ratio is not a fair comparison.

:rolleyes:

notobtuse

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many have they had to fact check? How many of them have made such stupid claims as thinking that injecting bleach is a good way to deal with a viral infection.

The answer to my question is zilch, zero, nada, none...

But I gather you already knew that but can't bring yourself to speak the truth, yet are all to happy to perpetuate the lie that Trump thinks it is a good idea for people to inject themselves with bleach.

2u2me

notobtuse wrote: »

The answer to my question is zilch, zero, nada, none...

But I gather you already knew that but can't bring yourself to speak the truth, yet are all to happy to perpetuate the lie that Trump thinks it is a good idea for people to inject themselves with bleach.

Fact-check for thee but not for me.

notobtuse

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So why doesn't he close his account if he feels he is being treated unfairly?

Twitter still reaches the most people. He might leave if Twitter continues their harassment tactic of fact-checking and flagging only certain content and not others. When it comes to politics there is rarely a dispute over facts and the disputes become merely a difference of values and opinions. How can Twitter possibly fact-check values and opinions? Twitter jumped the shark and have now gone from content provider to editor based only on their own judgment, and have therefore opened themselves to the legal basis of being legally responsible for every single tweet now posted on their platform. I doubt they want that and I think they’ll soon reassess their foolish fact-checking ploy and apologize to Trump. If not I think CEO’s of other platforms like Twitter are likely, if not already, to reach out to Trump to try and lure him away from Twitter.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The independent, CNN, MSNBC, the young Turks... I could go on.

They are all right wing? They all said Hillary would win comfortably?

You're moving the goalposts here. You started saying the polls predicted a landslide for Hilary, this isn't true. Now you're saying people were predicting a comfortable victory for Hilary, this is true.

Those are very different things. The people predicting a Hilary landslide didn't interpret the polls correctly and had a small part to play in suppressing turnout and electing Trump. So again, Trump should be thanking them not attacking them.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Where have you been? Trump is viscously attacked whenever his says ANYTHING!

No he isn't. I've never seen him "viciously attacked" by anyone. Drop the hyperbole.

Lots of people criticise him, mainly because he says and tweets stupid crap.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

When Twitter selectively targets applies rules to ONLY certain users and groups then they break their own rules.

They selectively apply their rules in Trumps favour. Anyone else that accuses people of murder would be banned by now.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

No he isn't. I've never seen him "viciously attacked" by anyone. Drop the hyperbole.

Lots of people criticise him, mainly because he says and tweets stupid crap.

Do you type this stuff with a straight face. During the bogus impeachment process the mainstream media’s Trump coverage was 100% negative. Before that I believe it was in the 91% negative realm. There is no way in this universe or elsewhere where anyone should get that type of negative coverage with all the good things he's done for the country.

ancapailldorcha

notobtuse wrote: »

The answer to my question is zilch, zero, nada, none...

But I gather you already knew that but can't bring yourself to speak the truth, yet are all to happy to perpetuate the lie that Trump thinks it is a good idea for people to inject themselves with bleach.

So you can't answer my question. It would have been easier if you'd just said so instead of clinging to this weird cultish crusade to defend Trump no matter what.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Do you type this stuff with a straight face. During the bogus impeachment process the mainstream media’s Trump coverage was 100% negative. Before that I believe it was in the 91% negative realm. There is no way in this universe or elsewhere where anyone should get that type of negative coverage with all the good things he's done for the country.

Negative coverage =/= vicious attacks.

Can you give me an example of one these vicious attacks?

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

Negative coverage =/= vicious attacks.

Can you give me an example of one these vicious attacks?

It's mad how it's become entirely predictable that the standard narrative about the most powerful man in the world is that he's always the victim and any criticism whatsoever is an "attack". There's nothing they have to defend this champion of theirs with so they just exalt their own fake victimhood.

No wonder the US is so f*cked. I mean, the West in general is heading for a era of managed decline but the US in particular, if they elect this exemplar of everything wrong with their country is just screwed.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You're moving the goalposts here. You started saying the polls predicted a landslide for Hilary, this isn't true. Now you're saying people were predicting a comfortable victory for Hilary, this is true.

Those are very different things. The people predicting a Hilary landslide didn't interpret the polls correctly and had a small part to play in suppressing turnout and electing Trump. So again, Trump should be thanking them not attacking them.

Jesus, I'm not moving any goalposts. In context it is clear to see that I was referring to newspaper polls and news outlets reports telling the normal Joe soap that Hillary was going to win and making anyone who was going to vote for trump not disclose their intention.

Perhaps the official polls predicted a tightly run contest but the ones normal people would have seen on the major networks and newspapers gave a different story, right up to and even after the results started coming in.

The people predicting a Hillary landslide were interpreting the polls incorrectly? Isn't it amazing that almost every news network and newspaper (certainly the most popular ones) and their experts managed to simply misinterpret the data?

Trump shouldn't thank them. It was unintentional and exactly the opposite of what the media tried to do which was paint anyone who even thought about voting for trump as an idiot.

Unfortunately for them, the media have become unbelievable and people aren't as likely to trust traditional media. Social media has taken its place and likely why we are seeing things like the events over the last 24 hours happen.

Professor Moriarty

Brian? wrote: »

Negative coverage =/= vicious attacks.

Can you give me an example of one these vicious attacks?

I'd be comfortable with negative coverage and/or vicious attacks via tweet, TV, print media etc. Whatever it takes to get rid of this very dangerous human being.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

They selectively apply their rules in Trumps favour. Anyone else that accuses people of murder would be banned by now.

Trump was crucified on Twitter for that. Twitter correctly stayed out of it and allowed the community to storm Trump's twitter account with pitchforks and torches. They let the people make their own decisions and left Trump to flounder on his own. Twitter probably could have gotten away with noting that Trump’s tweet was ugly and misleading regarding Scarborough and left it at that. Instead they’ve now put on an editor’s hat and opened themselves to a bunch of potential lawsuits.

But there are probably hundreds of millions of tweets that are posted on Twitter every day that are far worse than anything Trump tweets. How is Twitter going to police all of them? The answer is they can’t and wont... And like it or not it opens them up to a huuuuge range of potential legal problems.

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump was crucified on Twitter for that. Twitter correctly stayed out of it and allowed the community to storm Trump's twitter account with pitchforks and torches. They let the people make their own decisions and left Trump to flounder on his own. Twitter probably could have gotten away with noting that Trump’s tweet was ugly and misleading regarding Scarborough and left it at that. Instead they’ve now put on an editor’s hat and opened themselves to a bunch of potential lawsuits.

But there are probably hundreds of millions of tweets that are posted on Twitter every day that are far worse than anything Trump tweets. How is Twitter going to police all of them? The answer is they can’t and wont... And like it or not it opens them up to a huuuuge range of potential legal problems.

Twitter is like boards, if you report a post then it gets looked at, Trumps post was flagged due to a huge number of reports. It's not rocket science (to most of us) to see that's why his post had the fact check added.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus, I'm not moving any goalposts. In context it is clear to see that I was referring to newspaper polls and news outlets reports telling the normal Joe soap that Hillary was going to win and making anyone who was going to vote for trump not disclose their intention.

Perhaps the official polls predicted a tightly run contest but the ones normal people would have seen on the major networks and newspapers gave a different story, right up to and even after the results started coming in.

The people predicting a Hillary landslide were interpreting the polls incorrectly? Isn't it amazing that almost every news network and newspaper (certainly the most popular ones) and their experts managed to simply misinterpret the data?

Trump shouldn't thank them. It was unintentional and exactly the opposite of what the media tried to do which was paint anyone who even thought about voting for trump as an idiot.

Unfortunately for them, the media have become unbelievable and people aren't as likely to trust traditional media. Social media has taken its place and likely why we are seeing things like the events over the last 24 hours happen.

It's pointless trying to explain this to you.

There are no "official polls", there are just polls. If people interpreted the wrong, that doesn't mean the polls were inaccurate.

The Nate Silver model, which is an aggregate of all polls, put the chances of Clinton winning at 60% the day before the election. That's statsically a toss up. Anyone who couldn't see that was deluded.

notobtuse

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Twitter is like boards, if you report a post then it gets looked at, Trumps post was flagged due to a huge number of reports. It's not rocket science (to most of us) to see that's why his post had the fact check added.

Yes, in some ways Twitter IS like Boards. Here, you can get unfairly targeted and banned for claiming things (because you have the audacity to read other media than the likes of the Washington Post, The NY Times, MSLSD or CNN) that prove out to be true... Like the Trump campaign was spied upon.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump was crucified on Twitter for that. Twitter correctly stayed out of it and allowed the community to storm Trump's twitter account with pitchforks and torches. They let the people make their own decisions and left Trump to flounder on his own. Twitter probably could have gotten away with noting that Trump’s tweet was ugly and misleading regarding Scarborough and left it at that. Instead they’ve now put on an editor’s hat and opened themselves to a bunch of potential lawsuits.

But there are probably hundreds of millions of tweets that are posted on Twitter every day that are far worse than anything Trump tweets. How is Twitter going to police all of them? The answer is they can’t and wont... And like it or not it opens them up to a huuuuge range of potential legal problems.

Trump was crucified. He was criticised. The hyperbole is ridiculous.

If anyone else had accused someone of murder they would be banned from Twitter. Simple fact. He gets special treatment and whines like spoiled child.

PropJoe10

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump was crucified on Twitter for that. Twitter correctly stayed out of it and allowed the community to storm Trump's twitter account with pitchforks and torches. They let the people make their own decisions and left Trump to flounder on his own. Twitter probably could have gotten away with noting that Trump’s tweet was ugly and misleading regarding Scarborough and left it at that. Instead they’ve now put on an editor’s hat and opened themselves to a bunch of potential lawsuits.

But there are probably hundreds of millions of tweets that are posted on Twitter every day that are far worse than anything Trump tweets. How is Twitter going to police all of them? The answer is they can’t and wont... And like it or not it opens them up to a huuuuge range of potential legal problems.

Not all these accounts have 60 million followers, or whatever number that Trump has at this stage. They're also not coming from the official Twitter account of the President of the United States.

The fact remains that idiotic conspiracy theories coming from the POTUS official Twitter account are incredibly damaging. I think that's pretty obvious to most people with either a brain or a sense of common decency.

one world order

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Twitter is like boards, if you report a post then it gets looked at, Trumps post was flagged due to a huge number of reports. It's not rocket science (to most of us) to see that's why his post had the fact check added.

Fact checked by CNN lies. Mail in voting is open to corruption, anyone can see that. Social media outlets have been coordinating together to take down conservative videos and posts in advance of the election in November. The mass produced MSM has been corrupt for a very long time as they have a left agenda and they distort the truth.

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, in some ways Twitter IS like Boards. Here, you can get unfairly targeted and banned for claiming things (because you have the audacity to read other media than the likes of the Washington Post, The NY Times, MSLSD or CNN) that prove out to be true... Like the Trump campaign was spied upon.

I have never been banned for reading other media sources and using that here on boards

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

No he isn't. I've never seen him "viciously attacked" by anyone. Drop the hyperbole.

Lots of people criticise him, mainly because he says and tweets stupid crap.

I guess you've been living under a rock?

notobtuse

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Not all these accounts have 60 million followers, or whatever number that Trump has at this stage. They're also not coming from the official Twitter account of the President of the United States.

The fact remains that idiotic conspiracy theories coming from the POTUS official Twitter account are incredibly damaging. I think that's pretty obvious to most people with either a brain or a sense of common decency.

Legally, it makes no nevermind how many followers one has.

notobtuse

weisses wrote: »

I have never been banned for reading other media sources and using that here on boards

That makes one of us.

Professor Moriarty

A simple solution for Trump. If you are getting a lot of abuse for your tweets, just stop tweeting. Give regular press conferences instead. Problem solved.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

It's pointless trying to explain this to you.

There are no "official polls", there are just polls. If people interpreted the wrong, that doesn't mean the polls were inaccurate.

The Nate Silver model, which is an aggregate of all polls, put the chances of Clinton winning at 60% the day before the election. That's statsically a toss up. Anyone who couldn't see that was deluded.

Gee thanks Brian.

But as I said, I was referring to the "polls" that were reported on and broadcast on telly. So the polls that people saw on the vast vast majority of their traditional media were wrong as they were reported on falsely/incorrectly.

Bizarre how they all managed to get it wrong when you've made it clear you'd be deluded not to see such a statistical toss up.

They were telling people Hillary was definitely getting in. That's where most people get traditionally get their news from. That's my point.

Not every person is as clued in as you Brian. When their go-to news reports and news papers are telling them that Clinton is the next president, a lot of people have no reason to doubt them and check poll aggregates

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

I guess you've been living under a rock?

I'm shocked ... Fox news broadcasting factual correct statements .... I assume you don't know what viciously attacking someone is in that context ???

Let me give you an example ... Accusing someone of murder without a shred of evidence via Twitter ...... You get the jest right ??

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Trump was crucified. He was criticised. The hyperbole is ridiculous.

If anyone else had accused someone of murder they would be banned from Twitter. Simple fact. He gets special treatment and whines like spoiled child.

Oops. Now I'm going to pick on semantics.

Trump didn't accuse Joe Scarborough of murder.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I guess you've been living under a rock?

Actually I've been living in Europe.

There isn't s single "vicious attack" in that video.

notobtuse

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you can't answer my question. It would have been easier if you'd just said so instead of clinging to this weird cultish crusade to defend Trump no matter what.

Huh?

“How many have they had to fact check?”

"The answer to my question is zilch, zero, nada, none"

"How many of them have made such stupid claims as thinking that injecting bleach is a good way to deal with a viral infection."

First, Trump didn’t tweet that so your second question is rubbish. Second, I did choose to address it... ”But I gather you already knew that but can't bring yourself to speak the truth, yet are all to happy to perpetuate the lie that Trump thinks it is a good idea for people to inject themselves with bleach.”

You just didn’t seem to like my answers. So why the rubbish?