What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

It wasn't rejected by the supreme court, it just wasn't heard by them because it was a state law, not a constitutional law.

Can you point to where the pennsylvania supreme court stated that? They pretty clearly dismissed it as they viewed it to be in bad faith, it was brought in a year before and they only challenged it when they lost. No challenge for multiple elections over the year. They pretty clearly viewed it as a way to disenfranchise the electorate.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

Yeah, gonna need a better scource than some gossip columnist

What in the source piece is wrong or incorrect? I'd be interested in hearing it.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Here's another chart. I think The New York times is farther to the Left than some Right leaning media types lean to the Right.

1) I don't see PJ Media in this chart.

2) NYT (news) is placed in the same position as my chart. NYT (opinions) is more left as opinion pieces will naturally be more biased.

3) This chart is only about bias and not about how factual each source is (the y-axis in my chart), which is the relevant bit as you suggested that the NYT makes just as many false claims, i.e. both are equally as bad at fact reporting.

So, can you link to a chart which suggests that PJ Media is as factual as NYT, i.e. it is as high in the y-axis of a media bias chart? Or can you demonstrate that by some other means?

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you point to where the pennsylvania supreme court stated that? They pretty clearly dismissed it as they viewed it to be in bad faith, it was brought in a year before and they only challenged it when they lost. No challenge for multiple elections over the year. They pretty clearly viewed it as a way to disenfranchise the electorate.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10781.pdf?cb=1f7217

I think you're mixing up federal and state supreme courts. It's even worse with the PA supreme court, heavy democrat appointees, as apparently they just flatly refused to even hear it.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/03/22/pa-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-governor-wolfs-executive-fiat/

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

What in the source piece is wrong or incorrect? I'd be interested in hearing it.

Didn't say it was wrong or incorrect

It's just I don't usually go to celebrity gossip columnists for info on politics

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Better for you because it only comcentrates on left vs right and ignores if a site contains factual reportimg or outright lies. BTW the link you posted comes from a site known for outright lies. The NYT does not fall into that category.

I’m just happy The New York Times doesn’t always get away with their lies, Federal Judge Greenlights judgement is allowing Nick Sandmann’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times to continue for lies and libel. CNN already settled with him for big bucks.

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

Didn't say it was wrong or incorrect

It's just I don't usually go to celebrity gossip columnists for info on politics

Ah, I get it. Just another disingenuous ad hominem attack.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I’m just happy The New York Times doesn’t always get away with their lies, Federal Judge Greenlights judgement is allowing Nick Sandmann’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times to continue for lies and libel. CNN already settled with him for big bucks.

You still seem quite confident that the NYT tells a lots of lies relative to our media outlets, but you are yet to provide evidence of that even though you have been asked to several times. Would you like to try again?

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

That's.... that's what rejected means. Rejected means it is not heard by a court.

Okay. Really strange why the breaking of major laws of the state only has an expiration date of only a couple of weeks.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I think you're mixing up federal and state supreme courts. It's even worse with the PA supreme court, heavy democrat appointees, as apparently they just flatly refused to even hear it.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/03/22/pa-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-governor-wolfs-executive-fiat/

Except I wasn't remotely confused, I never said the federal supreme court dismissed it. You claimed they violated the state's constitution so the PA supreme court is what matters. Those concerned about the law had a year to challenge it, multiple elections occurred over the year but no challenges. So it's entirely bad faith to suddenly challenge it after they lose in a last ditch effort to throw out legitimate votes. So it was unanimously dismissed.

I'm also inclined to say this bio isn't of a person I'd be lending much weight to...

So you're clutching at straws.

With our 2nd Amendment rights being attacked at both the Federal and State level, and the ATF (Burea of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) trying to close down FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) for minor infractions while making FFLs the scapegoat when the ATF's records are inaccurate

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I’m just happy The New York Times doesn’t always get away with their lies, Federal Judge Greenlights judgement is allowing Nick Sandmann’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times to continue for lies and libel. CNN already settled with him for big bucks.

You've already made it clear that you don't care if a website posts lies so why are you concerned about the NYT? Being sued does not mean that a site posts nothing but lies. Even reputable sites get it wrong occasionally. Your sources are nothing but out and out lies.

Billy Mays

Billy Mays wrote: »

Didn't say it was wrong or incorrect

It's just I don't usually go to celebrity gossip columnists for info on politics

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/03/trump-money-bomb-scheme-republican-fundraising-2020

Different figures in this piece but it's clear both sides issued refunds and that one side was probably more, ahem, aggressive in their approach to online donations.

There was another link a few pages back but I can't be ars*d looking for it.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You've already made it clear that you don't care if a website posts lies so why are you concerned about the NYT? Being sued does not mean that a site posts nothing but lies. Even reputable sites get it wrong occasionally. Your sources are nothing but out and out lies.

Never said the NYT posts nothing but lies. I'm saying they occasionally get things wrong just like other sources. It's you that says sources are unreliable because they occasional get something wrong.

Prove to me your ad hominem attack that my sources are nothing but out and out lies. Otherwise it's you that can't be believed.

ohnonotgmail

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/03/trump-money-bomb-scheme-republican-fundraising-2020

Different figures in this piece but it's clear both sides issued refunds and that one side was probably more, ahem, aggressive in their approach to online donations.

There was another link a few pages back but I can't be ars*d looking for it.

Can you point out which part of that article mentions the Democrats?

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Never said the NYT posts nothing but lies. I'm saying they occasionally get things wrong just like other sources. It's you that says sources are unreliable because they occasional get something wrong.

Prove to me your ad hominem attack that my sources are nothing but out and out lies. Otherwise it's you that can't be believed.

You said the NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media. I provided evidence that shows that PJ Media is in fact factually incorrect a lot (and I mean a lot) more than NYT. You have been asked to demonstrate that that was wrong and you have not done so, nor have you taken back your original statement.

Only one of these two things can be true:

1) NYT occasionally get things wrong, as you just said now.
2) NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media, i.e. a lot, as you said previously.

You are therefore lying even to yourself.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

You still seem quite confident that the NYT tells a lots of lies relative to our media outlets, but you are yet to provide evidence of that even though you have been asked to several times. Would you like to try again?

I count about 10 corrections the NY Times were forced to make in 2020, alone. I'm not going to list them all... just do a search on "ny times corrections in 2020." I find it interesting how 'incorrect' reporting appears on page one at times when all the damage it done, and the corrections get buried far back in the publication.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you point out which part of that article mentions the Democrats?

Em, read it.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

You said the NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media. I provided evidence that shows that PJ Media is in fact factually incorrect a lot (and I mean a lot) more than NYT. You have been asked to demonstrate that that was wrong and you have not done so, nor have you taken back your original statement.

Only one of these two things can be true:

1) NYT occasionally get things wrong, as you just said now.
2) NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media, i.e. a lot, as you said previously.

You are therefore lying even to yourself.

Where did I say the NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media? I think I said I think I see news articles discredited from The New York Times about just as much. How many times in 2020 was PJ Media factually incorrect? I counted 10 from the NYT.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I count about 10 corrections the NY Times were forced to make in 2020, alone. I'm not going to list them all... just do a search on "ny times corrections in 2020." I find it interesting how 'incorrect' reporting appears on page one at times when all the damage it done, and the corrections get buried far back in the publication.

That is a very nice paragraph, but it does not constitute evidence.

Every media outlet has to make corrections every year. Relative to the average media outlet, I have provided evidence that the NYT does not have to do it much, whereas PJ Media has to do it a lot.

What is your evidence that suggests otherwise?

(Hint: Link to a data collection study.)

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Where did I say the NYT is factually incorrect as often as PJ Media? I think I said I think I see news articles discredited from The New York Times about just as much. How many times in 2020 was PJ Media factually incorrect? I counted 10 from the NYT.

So, in your first two sentences, you claim that you never said NYT was factually incorrect as often as PJ Media.

Then, in your final two sentences, you claim to have evidence that NYT was factually incorrect a lot in 2020.

What?

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a very nice paragraph, but it does not constitute evidence.

Every media outlet has to make corrections every year. Relative to the average media outlet, I have provided evidence that the NYT does not have to do it much, whereas PJ Media has to do it a lot.

What is your evidence that suggests otherwise?

(Hint: Link to a data collection study.)

Read what I wrote... I've seen about as many. I don't read every article published by both. And I might have missed it but what evidence did you provide that JP Media has to do it a lot.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Read what I wrote... I've seen about as many. I don't read every article published by both. And I might have missed it but what evidence did you provide that JP Media has to do it a lot.

I provided the chart. You know, actual evidence.

You are aware that by saying you found 10 times that NYT were incorrect in 2020, that my chart shows that PJ Media did not a lot more right? You're aware that you have made no point right?

It's a little bit telling that obtuse is actively being obtuse by avoiding the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed the unconstitutional claims... :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I count about 10 corrections the NY Times were forced to make in 2020, alone. I'm not going to list them all... just do a search on "ny times corrections in 2020." I find it interesting how 'incorrect' reporting appears on page one at times when all the damage it done, and the corrections get buried far back in the publication.

10 corrections over the course of a year is nothing.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Em, read it.

apologies, I missed the half a sentence that mentioned they refunded a tiny proportion of the amount the GOP did. Hardly "both sides are doing it".

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

I provided the chart. You know, actual evidence.

You are aware that by saying you found 10 times that NYT were incorrect in 2020, that my chart shows that PJ Media did not a lot more right? You're aware that you have made no point right?

I might have missed it, if you provided a chart showing PJ media did a lot more than 10 times in 2020 that they had to issue corrections. If so they I guess you're right and I don't read enough of their articles.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

apologies, I missed the half a sentence that mentioned they refunded a tiny proportion of the amount the GOP did. Hardly "both sides are doing it".

Over $20 million is hardly 'tiny.'

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Over $20 million is hardly 'tiny.'

you were asked where you got that figure from and you didn't reply. when you do then we can discuss it but until you do it will be dismissed as nonsense.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I might have missed it, if you provided a chart showing PJ media did a lot more than 10 times in 2020 that they had to issue corrections. If so they I guess you're right and I don't read enough of their articles.

Yes, I showed you a chart that showed that PJ Media are lot more factually inaccurate than NYT. And no, you did not miss it.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you were asked where you got that figure from and you didn't reply. when you do then we can discuss it but until you do it will be dismissed as nonsense.

I did show you where I got the information from.