Fact Check this

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Can you please source your crap, Dr. Exiled?

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

Can you please source your crap, Dr. Exiled?

- Doc

What do you want sourced? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... i-BB1c5APy

The army distancing itself from the martial law talk is all over the right wing press. Maybe stay away from 4 chan or whatever chan you read?

https://thespectator.information/2020/12/19/ar ... elections/

[honorentheos]

The claim that Russia interfered in the election in 2016 was often dismissed with guffaws of there being no evidence Russia changed votes or forced people to vote for Trump somehow or other. Which they obviously didn't do.

What they did do, though, is steal emails from the Clinton campaign and then execute a strategy of releasing the information out in regular drips over the last month of the campaign season that served to taint Hillary and played a role in her loss. Was it the only cause? No. But it mattered.

So, why mention that here? Because the Hunter Biden laptop demonstrates that the RNC and Trump campaign learned that lesson and were hoping to see the same tactic used against Biden. So much of the fact check butthurt isn't over actual concern for something Hunter did but that the media didn't play along this time, reporting innuendo because that's what brings the eyeballs which bring the ad dollars. Seems that the media also learned from 2016, recognizing that reporting rumors turns rumor into fact because people aren't great at getting under the headline. The headline becomes fact, the impression it gives becomes much more significant than the information presented.

And that's why I agree with Res on this. We've learned that there has to be some form of vetting before information gets presented to the general public or the public will consume the headline. So what says the free speech advocate who isn't paying attention? Let people be accountable for their own choices and actions? Yeah, that'll work.

This debate is as old as our nation. The Constitution gave state senates the job of selecting Senators precisely because there wasn't a broad willingness to trust the public with that responsibility. Let the people have the House, so long as the Senate could serve as a check on them. And having to be a male landowner to vote? Yeah, having skin in the game was a criteria for participation. Now we recognize that this disenfranchised most people from participation and needed fixed, but the concern was valid. Voters who don't have skin in the game vote for Boaty McBoatface every damn time. Reporting without accountability results in behavior that doesn't consider the effects of that information and if there is a need to verify it's accuracy.

In a sense, having free expression should serve as the stake in the game that causes the free speech advocate to engage in self-policing. But as we see in this thread, free speech in the US has a free rider problem. So, fact checkers.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, you're telling me you believe a pathological liar over numerous sources who said otherwise, and a General who was in that meeting who openly advocated for invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military to seize voting machines? Just to drive this home, Michael Flynn, discussed the martial law plan on right-wing television network Newsmax last week and was then invited to the White House Friday.

k.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

FACT CHECK ALERT!!!!!

Dr. Exiled claimed -

The idea was recently floated about declaring martial law and Trump immediately came out against it.

When Cam called him on it, his source for the claim was this tweet -https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... i-BB1c5APy

Does it support the claim Dr. Exiled made that Trump immediately came out against declaring martial law? Hell no. Trump isn't rejecting declaring martial law. He was denying it was discussed.

So, take your pick here. Either Dr. Exiled is bad at understanding the news or he lied.

END FACT CHECK ALERT!!!!!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Flynn, whom Trump recently pardoned for lying to the FBI, went even further, suggesting Trump could impose martial law and use the military to re-run the election. Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, voiced their objections, the people familiar with the meeting said.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do ... d87b6dce9c

I suppose the anonymous sources working in the White House, who were literally in that meeting, how else would they have known about Meadows and Cipollone, don't exist?

Let me tell you something, broheim, I trust AP news more than damned Trump any day. It's an absolute joke you quoted Trump as a reliable source of information.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Also, from Dr. Exiled's Spectator source:

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army chief of staff Gen. James McConville released a statement Friday saying they will not participate in a martial law order following the stolen election.

This came after General Michael Flynn suggested President Trump should order the US military to help seize the Dominion voting machines used in this year’s fraudulent election for testing.

C'mon, man.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Really? I see the media hyping a lot of stuff around Trump.

Absolutely. God knows how much cash CNN has raked in thanks to hyping up Trump's antics. But that doesn't address my point that you bolded about people's willingness to embrace tyranny.

The idea was recently floated about declaring martial law and Trump immediately came out against it and the joint chiefs representative immediately echoed the sentiment.

The part you bolded from me regards the willingness of a great swath of Americans to ratify tyranny. Look at what you're saying for a moment, Dr. E: Suggestions about what kind of standards should be adopted for fact checking, who wants them adopted, and in general, questions about how to moderate Facebook have already got you all the way down the slippery slope, and totalitarian China is a foregone conclusion. While in contrast, "so far Trump's attempt at a coup backed by hundreds of Republican officials and tens of millions of ranting citizens hasn't worked so what are you worried about?"

I don't think questioning the election, filling lawsuits and attempting to follow the constitution on January 6 equates to tyranny.

Dr. E. You are correct, but Trump isn't questioning the election. He pronounced himself the winner prior to the election concluding, lied repeatedly about election results from the beginning, declared it a huge fraud prior to any investigations, and social media fanned the flames. His dozens of failed lawsuits have been anything but an attempt to "follow the constitution".

I thought Trump would reluctantly and defiantly concede by now, but I still think that will happen after January 6. Tubberville is toying with contesting the electoral college vote but I believe he won't do so and even if he does, Biden will win out, then the reluctant concession speech will follow. Trump's lawsuits will continue and he will be on Trump T.V. bitching about this and that but he will leave just the same. Anyway, that is my prediction and we can keep the 1st amendment in tact.

And 10:1 you are probably right. But that speaks to the present strength of our judicial system apparently, and doesn't quite argue against the point of mine you bolded about people's willingness to embrace tyranny, and the kind of future we're looking at where obvious lies and misinformation going viral is slowly empowering elected officials to even attempt things like coups. And that's just the election. An equal if not more important problem has been sanctifying misinformation about coronavirus, everything from the virus as a hoax to making masks and social distancing rules a dark enemy. Things like pandemics prey on market failures, where individuals optimizing for themselves bring suboptimal outcomes for society -- prisoner's dilemma etc. Whether policy will fix the problem, in this case policy directed at misinformation about the pandemic on social media, isn't a foregone conclusion, but it's seriously on the table to try, and we have pretty spectacular evidence about how badly information anarchy can fail.

[Res Ipsa]

Dr. E, the topic is not Biden. The topic is fact checking. Your initial claim just after the election was that Trump's base would start to desert him so he’d have to concede to keep his base. You’ve been 100% wrong. His base wants him to declare martial law and seize voting machines.

Let’s not forget that the lie here is that Biden won only because of mass fraud. Fighting that lie through speech hasn’t worked, and we’re six weeks after Biden’s win. You act like Trump is simply having his day in court and making sure the Constitution is followed. That’s not what’s happening: he’s trying to steal an election by flooding the system with law suits, attempting to intimidate judges and legislators, and whipping his followers up into a violent mob. It’s not harmless, and you know it. You’ve given no rationale for protecting intentionally false and malicious speech. The first amendment already permits criminal punishment of intentionally false speech. So this isn’t about leaving the first amendment intact. And the most ridiculous part is you blaming the effect of Trump's deliberate, malicious lying on Biden.

[canpakes]

Dr. E, the topic is not Biden. The topic is fact checking. Your initial claim just after the election was that Trump's base would start to desert him so he’d have to concede to keep his base. You’ve been 100% wrong. His base wants him to declare martial law and seize voting machines.

I’ve still got my on money placed on this bet ...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=161&p=1663#p1663