Discussion Random Discussion

[George]

Asking for your definition.
I don't use the terms left/ right as I don't believe there is an agreed definition of them.

Liberals, progressives, socialists and communists typically vote one way. Conservatives, fascists, nationalists vote another.

Mainstream media predominantly report under the banner of the former.

This thread has been flooded with the same type of narrative as the mainstream.

Yes obviously people won't be typically all one way, take me for example - I am less left wing than others and far more centrist than others here. I said this before - this thread is a perfect microcosm of the media narrative. Anyone who disagree - shut them down quickly, make them look foolish, delegitimize their opinion via character assassination.

Are we living in a communist society or do we have the ability to debate openly, fairly and objectively? I wonder.

 

[George]

Hope he is not character assassinated;

Georgia governor calls for audit after state certifies election results

Georgia's secretary of state said earlier Friday that Joe Biden had been certified as the winner of Georgia's 16 electoral votes.

www.cbsnews.com

Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp certified the state's election results Friday, saying that now that the results are certified, the Trump campaign can pursue other legal options to call for a recount.

But Kemp didn't endorse the results, instead calling for another full hand recount. Kemp, who served as Georgia secretary of state before Raffensperger, has not publicly defended the state's election process from accusations from the president and his campaign. He alleged Friday that the audit revealed significant errors made in several counties, including Floyd, Douglas and Walton.

 

[Verdun]

What is 'the left'?

You will not get an answer. It is a label used by George to dismiss those who disagree with him and or ask him a question.

 

[George]

Meanwhile in Nevada;

Total Ballots Cast: 1,327,394
Total Votes: 1,407,754

Discrepancy of 80,360.

Biden leads by 33,596.

 

[George]

You will not get an answer. It is a label used by George to dismiss those who disagree with him and or ask him a question.

Liberals, progressives, socialists and communists typically vote one way. Conservatives, fascists, nationalists vote another.

Mainstream media predominantly report under the banner of the former.

This thread has been flooded with the same type of narrative as the mainstream.

Yes obviously people won't be typically all one way, take me for example - I am less left wing than others and far more centrist than others here. I said this before - this thread is a perfect microcosm of the media narrative. Anyone who disagree - shut them down quickly, make them look foolish, delegitimize their opinion via character assassination.

Are we living in a communist society or do we have the ability to debate openly, fairly and objectively? I wonder.

Continue to blatantly lie - or just completely disregard any of what I have to say (as above)

 

[Verdun]

"Mainstream media predominantly report under the banner of the former. "

Where did you get this from???

Interesting definition of mainstream.....leaves out all conservative media.

 

[George]

"Mainstream media predominantly report under the banner of the former. "

Where did you get this from???

Interesting definition of mainstream.....leaves out all conservative media.

Not really bothered to argue semantics with you.

Like I mentioned regarding if people are left or right, there is nuance, not all are one way and not all are the other. Generally speaking there is a pattern of behaviour that tends to lean left or lean right and determinations can be made from that.

Similarly, in media there is nuance. Generally speaking there is a pattern of behaviour that tends to lean left. Almost all of mainstream media tends to lean left. Regardless, the left leaning media completely dominate and control the narrative, irrespective of the minority of conservative media. That much is certain.

 

[Saints43]

Liberals, progressives, socialists and communists typically vote one way. Conservatives, fascists, nationalists vote another.

Mainstream media predominantly report under the banner of the former.

This thread has been flooded with the same type of narrative as the mainstream.

Yes obviously people won't be typically all one way, take me for example - I am less left wing than others and far more centrist than others here. I said this before - this thread is a perfect microcosm of the media narrative. Anyone who disagree - shut them down quickly, make them look foolish, delegitimize their opinion via character assassination.

Are we living in a communist society or do we have the ability to debate openly, fairly and objectively? I wonder.

It must be confirmation bias, or I'm more 'left' than I thought, because I don't see the MSM (The Herald Sun, The Age, The Australian, Ch7, Ch9, Ch10 etc) as progressive, promoting social safety nets, demanding higher standards of government transparency, supporting super-profit taxation etc. They seem very conservative (class based traditionalists) and pro-business above egalitarianism.

As for using name calling instead of reasoned argument I reckon I first saw this with the terms 'leftard' & 'SJW'. But, as you say, it's everywhere now.

 

[Verdun]

Continue to blatantly lie - or just completely disregard any of what I have to say (as above)

No old mate I disagree with you there is a difference.


Chill out

 

[George]

It must be confirmation bias, or I'm more 'left' than I thought, because I don't see the MSM (The Herald Sun, The Age, The Australian, Ch7, Ch9, Ch10 etc) as progressive, promoting social safety nets, demanding higher standards of government transparency, supporting super-profit taxation etc. They seem very conservative (class based traditionalists) and pro-business above egalitarianism.

As for using name calling instead of reasoned argument I reckon I first saw this with the terms 'leftard' & 'SJW'. But, as you say, it's everywhere now.

I'm talking about how MSM reports on American politics.

Never used leftard or SJW...think the former is a bit too much. Leftie is as far as I'll go More importantly would never go to label anyone as anything unless I thought I had enough evidence of behavioural patterns to do so...something those who disagree with my views do not do.

No old mate I disagree with you there is a difference.


Chill out

Lol, well say that then instead of saying I will not answer the question.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Can't resist - so evidence presented under oath can now be either

A - dismissed if it doesn't support your argument.

"I assume you and others here were in the same boat regarding collusion in 2016 or impeachment - both thrown out because of no evidence"

or

B - must be accepted as fact if it supports your argument

"They have shown you actual evidence already. Statements under oath - evidence. I don't know why you dismiss this fact."

 

[Verdun]

Not really bothered to argue semantics with you.

Like I mentioned regarding if people are left or right, there is nuance, not all are one way and not all are the other. Generally speaking there is a pattern of behaviour that tends to lean left or lean right and determinations can be made from that.

Similarly, in media there is nuance. Generally speaking there is a pattern of behaviour that tends to lean left. Almost all of mainstream media tends to lean left. Regardless, the left leaning media completely dominate and control the narrative, irrespective of the minority of conservative media. That much is certain.

It is not semantics old mate it is a discussion:

"the left leaning media completely dominate and control the narative, irrespective of conservative media. That much is certain." How and when.

That statement is your opinion I totally disagree, you ignore the domination of the media here in Australia and in the States not by left leaning.

Fake news! Not based on anything.

You are the one using labels when someone disagrees with you.

 

[George]

Can't resist - so evidence presented under oath can now be either

A - dismissed if it doesn't support your argument.

"I assume you and others here were in the same boat regarding collusion in 2016 or impeachment - both thrown out because of no evidence"

or

B - must be accepted as fact if it supports your argument

"They have shown you actual evidence already. Statements under oath - evidence. I don't know why you dismiss this fact."

Ok lets break it down - it seems you are having trouble grasping my comment.

Statements under oath are evidence. This is a fact.

Now to your poor attempt at a gotcha comment.

Russian collusion and impeachment - these have already been investigated. No doubt there were statements made under oath (evidence). However enough to categorically determine impeachment or collusion? No. This was investigated and those were the findings.

What is happening now is ongoing, when it is over if there is no evidence of mass voter fraud then clearly the evidence presented was not enough to turn the result.

Statements made under oath and Trump losing legal battles are not mutually exclusive.

Do better.

 

[George]

It is not semantics old mate it is a discussion:

"the left leaning media completely dominate and control the narative, irrespective of conservative media. That much is certain." How and when.

That statement is your opinion I totally disagree, you ignore the domination of the media here in Australia and in the States not by left leaning.

Fake news! Not based on anything.

You are the one using labels when someone disagrees with you.

What do you mean how and when? Trump is well within his right to contest the result of the election - look at the response to it from the media. Reporting in favour of Biden clearly dominates any reporting that favours Trump. This is obvious and this thread a great example of that.

Domination by conservative media in America & Australia? What? I go on Twitter all I see is left leaning media. I turn on my TV all I see is left leaning media.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

I find left and right wing to be a stupid axis to place political beliefs on.

And both sides eventually reach the same thing if you believe the horseshoe theory.

 

[George]

I find left and right wing to be a stupid axis to place political beliefs on.

And both sides eventually reach the same thing if you believe the horseshoe theory.

It is just a general term, to me anyway. I would hope everyone would take in both sides and form their own view from that. Someone who believes majority one side over the other we can generally say are left/right though. Don't think there is any problem with saying someone is left/right though. I don't think labelling someone politically is actually offensive and if so will stop.

 

[Verdun]

What do you mean how and when? Trump is well within his right to contest the result of the election - look at the response to it from the media. Reporting in favour of Biden clearly dominates any reporting that favours Trump. This is obvious and this thread a great example of that.

Domination by conservative media in America & Australia? What? I go on Twitter all I see is left leaning media. I turn on my TV all I see is left leaning media.

Oh ok, so you actually believe like Trump the result is in dispute and the media is reporting 'in favour of Biden clearly dominates any reporting that favours Trump'?

I actually do not think it is a matter of reporting in favour of Biden.

I actually believe an election has occurred and one party has won. Trump has actually said he won - do you believe that is right?


306 - 232 - yep dispute results but the actual result can not be disputed. That is not 'left leaning bias' that is the result of a democratic process called an election.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

It is just a general term, to me anyway. I would hope everyone would take in both sides and form their own view from that. Someone who believes majority one side over the other we can generally say are left/right though. Don't think there is any problem with saying someone is left/right though. I don't think labelling someone politically is actually offensive and if so will stop.

I dont have a problem or see a problem with people labing using left and right, just find it a very inefficient way to describe political beliefs.

I feel using left/right just gets rid of a lot of nuance with politics.

 

[George]

Oh ok, so you actually believe like Trump the result is in dispute and the media is reporting 'in favour of Biden clearly dominates any reporting that favours Trump'?

I actually do not think it is a matter of reporting in favour of Biden.

I actually believe an election has occurred and one party has won. Trump has actually said he won - do you believe that is right?


306 - 232 - yep dispute results but the actual result can not be disputed. That is not 'left leaning bias' that is the result of a democratic process called an election.

But the result is in dispute. They are going to court over it. Do I think it will be enough to turn the election? I actually don't know, just like you don't know. If I had to put a percentage on it being overturned I'd probably say 25-35%. But I really have no idea what will be presented and how the proceeding will go - if someone like me knew what would happen then this would already be over.

Once again - I have answered you already on this and told you so many times - for the final time - No, I do not believe Trump saying he won is right. Similarly, I do not believe Biden saying he won is right either. This is in court now, there will be a winner eventually, announce it then. No idea what the fascination is with calling results early. They have a legal process - and I will be fine with whatever comes from that.

 

[George]

I dont have a problem or see a problem with people labing using left and right, just find it a very inefficient way to describe political beliefs.

I feel using left/right just gets rid of a lot of nuance with politics.

You are right but again it's just a general term, I did mention earlier there is nuance, I'd be silly to think there wasn't!

 

[gringo2011]

Ok lets break it down - it seems you are having trouble grasping my comment.

Statements under oath are evidence. This is a fact.

Now to your poor attempt at a gotcha comment.

Russian collusion and impeachment - these have already been investigated. No doubt there were statements made under oath (evidence). However enough to categorically determine impeachment or collusion? No. This was investigated and those were the findings.

What is happening now is ongoing, when it is over if there is no evidence of mass voter fraud then clearly the evidence presented was not enough to turn the result.

Statements made under oath and Trump losing legal battles are not mutually exclusive.

Do better.

So Trump has made seemingly baseless claims that there was widespread fraud but it's up to everyone who isn't of the same belief to come up with evidence why it not true? That is not how the law works.

 

[Verdun]

I find left and right wing to be a stupid axis to place political beliefs on.

And both sides eventually reach the same thing if you believe the horseshoe theory.

I dont have a problem or see a problem with people labing using left and right, just find it a very inefficient way to describe political beliefs.

I feel using left/right just gets rid of a lot of nuance with politics.

Yep exactly, well said. It is not offensive just lazy.

 

[George]

So Trump has made seemingly baseless claims that there was widespread fraud but it's up to everyone who isn't of the same belief to come up with evidence why it not true? That is not how the law works.

You are right, it isn't how the law works. I don't think I or anyone has actually said that, either.

Seemingly baseless is a good way to word it - none of us actually know what will happen once they have presented their case.

Yes, they (Trump & co) have to prove there was fraud - my point is that we do not know yet. We get fed the scraps and then think we know it all.

I've never actually said I think there is mass voter fraud. I think to say we don't know and to trust the legal process is a fair reasonable view to hold.

Edit: Sorry they have to prove there was MASS fraud - enough to turn the result. They can still prove fraud and lose.

 

[George]

Yep exactly, well said. It is not offensive just lazy.

Will put my hand up - yes I am lazy

 

[Verdun]

But the result is in dispute. They are going to court over it. Do I think it will be enough to turn the election? I actually don't know, just like you don't know. If I had to put a percentage on it being overturned I'd probably say 25-35%. But I really have no idea what will be presented and how the proceeding will go - if someone like me knew what would happen then this would already be over.

Once again - I have answered you already on this and told you so many times - for the final time - No, I do not believe Trump saying he won is right. Similarly, I do not believe Biden saying he won is right either. This is in court now, there will be a winner eventually, announce it then. No idea what the fascination is with calling results early. They have a legal process - and I will be fine with whatever comes from that.

Ok ...this is where we disagree.

I do not believe the result is in doubt and that is not the fault of the media.

It is time for the 'Republican Party' to call Trump out and act with some class.