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

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I did show you where I got the information from.

so one side deliberately set out to overcharge donors and the other didn't. I think that sums it up.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I looked back and you’re right, I did see it. But I only looked at the bias parts, and not the reliability parts because it's had to read. The source of the chart seems to be a big nothingburger and can’t apparently be trusted. Those who have scrutinized it say Ad Fontes Media’s underlying data is not available for scrutiny. Even the founder Vanessa Ortero admits as much on the FAQ page: “The data I have compiled so far is in my own spreadsheets and notebooks.” So it is one person’s opinion and you don’t even know how many articles she reads or what her opinion of bias and reliability are. Best to be dismissed.

https://thebestdisinfectant.com/2019/08/16/how-reliable-is-the-ad-fontes-media-bias-chart/

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so one side deliberately set out to overcharge donors and the other didn't. I think that sums it up.

Or one's fine print is bigger than the others. Bottom line... they both did it.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Or one's fine print is bigger than the others. Bottom line... they both did it.

if one person punched somebody in the face and another shot somebody in the face would you compare the two? your lack of good faith posting hasn't changed in your leave of absence.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I looked back and you’re right, I did see it. But I only looked at the bias parts, and not the reliability parts because it's had to read. The source of the chart seems to be a big nothingburger and can’t apparently be trusted. Those who have scrutinized it say Ad Fontes Media’s underlying data is not available for scrutiny. Even the founder Vanessa Ortero admits as much on the FAQ page: “The data I have compiled so far is in my own spreadsheets and notebooks.” So it is one person’s opinion and you don’t even know how many articles she reads or what her opinion of bias and reliability are. Best to be dismissed.

https://thebestdisinfectant.com/2019/08/16/how-reliable-is-the-ad-fontes-media-bias-chart/

You have linked to a person's blog to try to discredit a study? Really?

As I said before, you can pick any media bias chart you like (that shows the reliability as well as the bias) which claims that NYT and PJ Media are comparable in reliability.

What will you find? That no study and no media bias chart shows anything like what you claim, and that NYT is instead much more reliable than PJ Media.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

You have linked to a person's blog to try to discredit a study? Really?

As I said before, you can pick any media bias chart you like (that shows the reliability as well as the bias) which claims that NYT and PJ Media are comparable in reliability.

What will you find? That no study and no media bias chart shows anything like what you claim, and that NYT is instead much more reliable than PJ Media.

The funniest part about notobtuses post is that he used that nickiswift.com page as a source and also decried the NYT as liars. The nickiswift.com article uses the NYT article as a source. so it is fine when nickswift.com says it but it is all lies when it is on the NYT.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if one person punched somebody in the face and another shot somebody in the face would you compare the two? your lack of good faith posting hasn't changed in your leave of absence.

There's no such thing as being just a little bit pregnant.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The funniest part about notobtuses post is that he used that nickiswift.com page as a source and also decried the NYT as liars. The nickiswift.com article uses the NYT article as a source. so it is fine when nickswift.com says it but it is all lies when it is on the NYT.

I read articles from the NYT's quite a bit. They don't always put bad reporting forth, although their editorial/opinion pages are rabid left. I only go after them then their reporting is bad (and the Left believes they're the new gospel), and especially because their bad reporting always seem to be detrimental to republicans. Am I biased... sure, just like you are. The thing about PJ media reporting is their articles are biased right, but they often source the information from elsewhere and link the reporting.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I read articles from the NYT's quite a bit. They don't always put bad reporting forth, although their editorial/opinion pages are rabid left. I only go after them then their reporting is bad (and the Left believes they're the new gospel), and especially because their bad reporting always seem to be detrimental to republicans. Am I biased... sure, just like you are. The thing about PJ media reporting is their articles are biased right, but they often source the information from elsewhere and link the reporting.

PJMedia just plain make **** up. and you dismissed the NYT as a source.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

There's no such thing as being just a little bit pregnant.

could you not think of something less relevant to post? i'm sure you could if you tried.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I read articles from the NYT's quite a bit. They don't always put bad reporting forth, although their editorial/opinion pages are rabid left. I only go after them then their reporting is bad (and the Left believes they're the new gospel), and especially because their bad reporting always seem to be detrimental to republicans. Am I biased... sure, just like you are. The thing about PJ media reporting is their articles are biased right, but they often source the information from elsewhere and link the reporting.

As do NYT. More importantly, however, NYT also write factual information rather than made up bull****, as my evidence has demonstrated.

If you are going to continue to defend PJ Media, without providing evidence that they are factual, just be noted that no one here is going to take your opinions seriously.

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

could you not think of something less relevant to post? i'm sure you could if you tried.

Very relevant. It doesn't matter if you stuck people for $20 or $166 because of the small print. It still is the same thing.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

As do NYT. More importantly, however, NYT also write factual information rather than made up bull****, as my evidence has demonstrated.

If you are going to continue to defend PJ Media, without providing evidence that they are factual, just be noted that no one here is going to take your opinions seriously.

Look at the articles from PJ Media and tell where any of the articles do not have factual information.

https://pjmedia.com/

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Look at the articles from PJ Media and tell where any of the articles do not have factual information.

https://pjmedia.com/

Good one.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Very relevant. It doesn't matter if you stuck people for $20 or $166 because of the small print. It still is the same thing.

you keep believing that nonsense if it makes your support of trump easier to bear.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Look at the articles from PJ Media and tell where any of the articles do not have factual information.

https://pjmedia.com/

You are asking me to read through hundreds of articles to prove that they are factual? When I have already linked to a Wiki page which pointed to the many false claims of this news outlet? When many people have already read through the articles of that outlet, analysed them more thoroughly than I ever could and created media biased charts that shows that they are not factual? And yet when I asked you to point to a single media bias chart of the many that are out there that say it is in fact a factual news outlet, you couldn't?

MisterAnarchy

duploelabs wrote: »

Trolls are only here to feed off your frustration by making inane claims that can be instantly discredited with one click. Your replies are their oxygen, don't bother giving them it

Looks like certain posters didn't take your advice.
Why would that be ?
Is it because they are cantankerous, confrontational, truculent and pugnacious ?
Its an endless loop, without Trumpists to argue with they aren't happy.

astrofool

notobtuse wrote: »

Very relevant. It doesn't matter if you stuck people for $20 or $166 because of the small print. It still is the same thing.

I would remark that one common theme among the trumpeters and trump himself has been to try and equivalence class completely disproportionate events together. I mean, in this case, one of them is literally 8.3 times worse than the other yet the attempt is made to classify them as the same.

The pregnancy comment is just completely off the wall and bizarre.

But it's good that the thread has moved on from a November no-fraud occurred replay.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

You are asking me to read through hundreds of articles to prove that they are factual? When I have already linked to a Wiki page which pointed to the many false claims of this news outlet? When many people have already read through the articles of that outlet, analysed them more thoroughly than I ever could and created media biased charts that shows that they are not factual? And yet when I asked you to point to a single media bias chart of the many that are out there that say it is in fact a factual news outlet, you couldn't?

No I'm not asking you to read through hundreds of articles to prove that they are factual. Pick two or three. Posters seem to be saying none of their articles can be trusted. I'm saying otherwise. Do they get things wrong at times... yes. The same as everyone. Are they more guilty over others... I haven't seen that in the articles I've read.

And I have been consistent in what I have been saying.

extra gravy

astrofool wrote: »

I would remark that one common theme among the trumpeters and trump himself has been to try and equivalence class completely disproportionate events together. I mean, in this case, one of them is literally 8.3 times worse than the other yet the attempt is made to classify them as the same.

From the NYT article:

"Political strategists, digital operatives and campaign finance experts said they could not recall ever seeing refunds at such a scale. Mr. Trump, the R.N.C. and their shared accounts refunded far more money to online donors in the last election cycle than every federal Democratic candidate and committee in the country combined."

Both sides...

extra gravy

notobtuse wrote: »

Pick two or three. Posters seem to be saying none of their articles can be trusted. I'm saying otherwise.

"'Get Out, Nazis!'– Pastor Explodes in Righteous Anger, Kicks Out Canada's COVID Cops at 'Good Friday' Service"

"Now American Airlines Has Joined the Woke Chorus"

"Well, Apparently, Trees Might Be Racist Now, Too"

"The Morning Briefing: It's Official—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Utterly Useless"

Which ones are your favourite?

notobtuse

astrofool wrote: »

I would remark that one common theme among the trumpeters and trump himself has been to try and equivalence class completely disproportionate events together. I mean, in this case, one of them is literally 8.3 times worse than the other yet the attempt is made to classify them as the same.

The pregnancy comment is just completely off the wall and bizarre.

But it's good that the thread has moved on from a November no-fraud occurred replay.

The pregnancy comment is phrase I seen used numerous times in politics discussions here in the US. Maybe I should have said something like if you rob 2 people or 10 people your still a robber. You can't say one person is not a robber because he robbed 8 times less than someone else.

Fraud was committed in November to the benefit of Biden, but sadly to the victor goes the spoils. So we move on, but it is important to remember that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it... so we won't let anyone forget what happened and work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

notobtuse

extra gravy wrote: »

"'Get Out, Nazis!'– Pastor Explodes in Righteous Anger, Kicks Out Canada's COVID Cops at 'Good Friday' Service"

"Now American Airlines Has Joined the Woke Chorus"

"Well, Apparently, Trees Might Be Racist Now, Too"

"The Morning Briefing: It's Official—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Utterly Useless"

Which ones are your favourite?

Sensational headlines... yes. That's their hook. Same thing Drudge has always done. But did you even bother to read the articles? If not, please don't waste any more of my time.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

The pregnancy comment is phrase I seen used numerous times in politics discussions here in the US. Maybe I should have said something like if you rob 2 people or 10 people your still a robber. You can't say one person is not a robber because he robbed 8 times less than someone else.

Fraud was committed in November to the benefit of Biden, but sadly to the victor goes the spoils. So we move on, but it is important to remember that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it... so we won't let anyone forget what happened and work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

who said the the democrats robbed anybody? we know that trump took recurring payments when people thought they were only making a single payment. Is there to suggest the democrats did the same?

extra gravy

notobtuse wrote: »

But did you even bother to read the articles? If not, please don't waste any more of my time.

notobtuse wrote: »

Fraud was committed in November to the benefit of Biden

I wouldn't waste my time reading anything you link to, you're clearly still deluded.

Leroy42

notobtuse wrote: »

Sensational headlines... yes. That's their hook. Same thing Drudge has always done. But did you even bother to read the articles? If not, please don't waste any more of my time.

Its not the articles, its their lack of any evidence. Giving a link to someone else's opinion piece is not evidence that your opinion is right. Only evidence of where you got your opinion.

It always strange that you earlier ignored a NYT article about Georgia voting law because NYT is hopelessly biased, yet here you are excusing your sourcing for clear bias as merely a hook and sure everyone does it.

So either you accept that, and therefore accept that the previous bias of an outlet should have no bearing on your view of a particular article or you don't

notobtuse

extra gravy wrote: »

I wouldn't waste my time reading anything you link to, you're clearly still deluded.

Okay, your loss, live in that political bubble of yours... and that's a funny way of saying cognizant of the facts.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

Okay, your loss, live in that political bubble of yours... and that's a funny way of saying cognizant of the facts.

You've claimed the election wasn't fair, then you claimed to offer proof but that was far from credible.... It's pretty apparent that you've built your own bubble...

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

The pregnancy comment is phrase I seen used numerous times in politics discussions here in the US. Maybe I should have said something like if you rob 2 people or 10 people your still a robber. You can't say one person is not a robber because he robbed 8 times less than someone else.

Fraud was committed in November to the benefit of Biden, but sadly to the victor goes the spoils. So we move on, but it is important to remember that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it... so we won't let anyone forget what happened and work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

There's a thread on that here

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058129031

extra gravy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've claimed the election wasn't fair, then you claimed to offer proof but that was far from credible.... It's pretty apparent that you've built your own bubble...

It's like a merry-go-round with them. Poster makes the fraud claim, doesn't know or care about the difference between facts and allegations, can't back up their claims and then disappears. Another one comes along...same story. It was amusing in the beginning but now it's just sad and pathetic.