Did out and out lying just become something more dangerous to do?
Voting Technology Company Threatens Lawsuits 1:23 pm “Dominion Voting Systems has sent letters to Fox News, as well as the right-wing media outlets Newsmax and One America News warning it may sue over the baseless conspiracy theory that the election technology company manipulated the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Business Insider reports.
“Dominion has also sent letters to individual hosts and right-wing media figures, including Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and Maria Bartiromo, as well as Rush Limbaugh.”
______
(Several of the above have already crawled all over themselves backtracking.)
I can't start a thread but the social media era seems to have created an alternate reality Muniverse. This might help.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” These days, though, two out of three Americans get their news from social media sites like Facebook, its subsidiary Instagram, Google’s YouTube, and Twitter. And these sites supply each of us with our own facts, showing conservatives mostly news liked by other conservatives, feeding liberals mostly liberal content.
Democracy depends on the integrity of the information we consume, and social media has undermined that. It has created biased alternate realities that have deepened and hardened our partisan divide. If America is to continue as a viable, unified nation, it must restore a healthy multi-perspective discourse.
Breaking up the social network companies won’t solve the problem. The Federal Trade Commission has initiated antitrust suits against Google and Facebook, the latter supported by attorneys general in 46 states (including Massachusetts). But splitting Instagram from Facebook or YouTube from Google would just result in more, slightly smaller social networks promulgating the same fake and biased content.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution that won’t require years-long antitrust actions, abrogating the First Amendment, killing the sites altogether, or even meddling in their algorithms. Let’s call it social media rebalancing. And there’s a precedent for it: the Fairness Doctrine.
The Federal Communications Commission created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, requiring radio (and eventually television) broadcasters who aired a point of view to allow “qualified representatives of opposing viewpoints” airtime as well. If you watched local TV in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, you saw such dueling opinion segments on the local news. The rationale was to provide the public with diverse and balanced perspectives, even though a given market might have only three or four TV stations. If a broadcaster failed to live up to the doctrine, it was at risk of losing its government broadcast license, ending its ability to operate.
The amount of enlightening content enabled by the Fairness Doctrine is difficult to measure. But the effect of ending it isn’t. The Reagan administration-controlled FCC suspended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program emerged the following year, followed by a flood of other partisan talk shows.
With dozens of channels and thousands of websites slinging news now, there’s a wide diversity of perspectives on offer. In theory, this should mean that the need for the Fairness Doctrine has dissipated. But there is only one Facebook, only one YouTube, and only one Twitter, and their algorithms together ensure that each individual sees mostly news and opinion consonant with their own perspective — the same sort of problem that the Fairness Doctrine was intended to head off.
Google and Twitter say they’re trying to make things better. A Google spokesperson explained that YouTube’s recommendation system now tends to go from extreme content to more mainstream content, not the reverse. Twitter’s spokesperson pointed out that the company posts warnings on misleading information from political figures like the president. But while social media companies continue to take baby steps away from the worst content, like hate speech, they’ve made only token efforts to compensate for the divide they’ve worsened and the falsehoods they’ve sustained. They’re not held accountable for the damage they continue to create. This has to stop.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris star in ‘A Campaign Christmas Carol’
Just as Joe was surrendering to a dreamy slumber, out in the hallway there arose such a clatter. He sprung from his bed to see what was the matter. And to what did his wondering eyes appear, but a wide open front door with an unwanted stranger cursing and planning to smear.
Biden looked up and saw the semi-transparent figure of a spirit wrapped in balls and chains as though he were a heavily laden inmate stumbling around a prison yard. Curiously, one of the strands was more like a rope and didn’t contain any weights, instead dragging what appeared to be two dozen empty booze bottles and beer cans -- Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, Vodka, Budweiser, Sweet Vermouth and at the end, a broken green Carlo Rossi wine magnum circa 1970. The ghostly apparition had very thick jowls and a scrub of greasy hair that seemed like the type you’d find on a politician who’d been to many a brothel -- and dwelled in the senate for half a century.
The ghoul’s smell was overpowering, like a bedridden otherworldly nut house patient who’d been denied a sponge bath for six months. Joe’s keen nose detected a mixture of blood, a rancid ham sandwich, vomit, yeast-infected urine, feces and body odor occupying every corner of the room.
Not immediately recognizing the specter, Joe hesitatingly spoke, “Can you sit down?”
“I can” the ghost replied tersely in a well-worn Harvard Bostonian accent. “Who are you?” Joe inquired. “Ask me who I was” answered the visitor.
“You’re rather particular for a ghost. Okay, who were you?” Joe did as ordered.
“In life I was your senate partner, Teddy Kennedy. I have come back from the grave to warn you, Joe. You must change your ways or you will suffer my fate, to walk through all eternity as a formless nothing, doomed to wander among his fellow humanity as though what we did up on Capitol Hill mattered to anyone. It turns out that the man upstairs didn’t appreciate the way we slandered Robert Bork all those years ago. And the tens of millions of babies who died thanks to the Supreme Court and our feminist lobby’s bought-and-paid-for abortion protection bills? Well, he’s not real wild about those either.”
Joe snickered to himself at the way the spirit described the almighty. ‘Wow,’ he thought, ‘Teddy Kennedy in the afterlife. Who would’ve ever guessed? I would’ve wagered he’d be burning in you-know-where for that Mary Jo Kopechne/Chappaquiddick thing. But it was a long time ago, right? A politician has many more lives than a cat even has. I’m living proof of that!’
“What do you want with me?” Joe inquired.
“Much!” Kennedy snatched an unmarked bottle from the rope and tried to take a swig, throwing it down in frustration upon his failed attempt. “I can’t even drink anymore -- talk about hades,” the old drunk growled. “Never mind. As I said, I’m here to warn you. You’re gonna be visited by three other ghosts tonight who will provide some perspective on what a rotten human being you are and then try to steer you down the path to redemption. One will be here at the stroke of one, another at two and the third, well, she’s a tad mercurial. She’ll be here when she damn well feels like it.”
Fauci says herd immunity could require nearly 90% to get coronavirus vaccine Reuters 1:07 PM By Jonathan Allen (Reuters) - Herd immunity against the novel coronavirus could require vaccination rates approaching as high as 90%, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the most prominent U.S. infectious disease expert, said in an interview published on Thursday.
More than 1 million Americans have received a first dose of a vaccine since Dec. 14, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, or only about 0.3% of the population.
Fauci, who is advising both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden on the pandemic, acknowledged that he had incrementally increased his estimates from earlier in the year, when he tended to say only 60% to 70% would need to be inoculated for herd immunity to be reached.
"We need to have some humility here," Fauci told the New York Times "We really don't know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
His comments came as the country marks grim new daily milestones while contending with the world's deadliest outbreak: it reported more than 3,000 deaths for the second consecutive day on Wednesday. The U.S. death toll reached 326,333 by midnight on Wednesday, according to Reuters data.
That same day, more Americans flew than on any other day since the pandemic emerged in March, with 1,191,123 passengers passing through airport checkpoints, according to data from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
The data suggested many were disregarding public health experts' advice to avoid traveling to celebrate Christmas Day on Friday. Fauci and other experts say social distancing will be required deep into 2021 as vaccines are slowly rolled out.
The number of travelers was down from 2019, when 1,937,235 flew on Dec. 23. Wednesday's traffic exceeded the previous pandemic-era high set on Nov. 29, the Sunday after the Thanksgiving holiday, when 1,176,091 people passed through TSA checkpoints, preceding new surges in coronavirus cases in many states.
Health care workers, elderly nursing home residents, elected officials and firefighters are among those receiving the vaccines first. Most Americans have been told it could be six months or more before they are eligible for the shots.
Fauci, who was appointed director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1984, said in the interview that he had become more willing to reveal his beliefs as polls show Americans were becoming somewhat less skeptical about the new vaccines. The more infectious a disease is, the higher the rate of vaccination is required to reach a threshold of herd immunity, in which its spread is contained.
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci, who turned 80 on Thursday, told the Times.
"Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85.'"
Fauci says herd immunity could require nearly 90% to get coronavirus vaccine
So even Fauci admits that he "had said" that it would take 60-70% to acquire herd immunity? Was he lying back then or is he lying now? Sounds like even he admits.... that he is just guessing and doesn't really know squat.
What about Trump's bold sweeping assertions that we would be down to near zero cases and deaths within a very few days and that it would be safe to pack the churches for last Easter? And that we had recently turned the corner on this virus?
What about those sweeping assertions?
Most Americans trust Fauci far more than they trust Trump, and for VERY good reasons.
Frustrated Trump Met with Pence Before Break 2:49 pm
“Hours before President Trump retweeted a message for his vice president to ‘act’ in stopping the ratification of the Electoral College, he met for more than an hour in the Oval Office with Mike Pence, whom he has complained recently isn’t doing enough to support his bid to overturn the election,” CNN reports.
Pompeo’s Wife Tested Positive 2:47 pm “Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s wife tested positive for the coronavirus, after the couple came under criticism for holding parties at the State Department despite a nationwide spike in Covid-19 cases,” Bloomberg reports.
“It wasn’t immediately clear how Susan Pompeo contracted the virus, though she tested positive just before her husband announced Dec. 16 that he was going into quarantine for exposure.” _________
Attending maskless parties can definitely increase the chance that you will contract the virus.
You are comparing a politician with a epidemiologist in terms of credibility regarding a virus? Sort of like me suggesting that Joe Biden's prediction of 250,000 deaths in December should be compared to what Fauci says?
People should "expect" an epidemiologist with decades of experience to do more than just "guess".
People should "expect" a politician to do things like call a travel ban (that saves thousands of lives) racist... because he is a stupid politician, or to demand that a quarter million people would die before Xmas because he is a stupid politician, or to say that the WHO was wrong to claim a 3% death rate for Covid (and claim it was going to be closer to 1%) because he is a stupid politician... for someone to say we would have a vaccine by the end of the year (when all the experts told him he was crazy) because he is a stupid politician.
Oh wait... I guess the politician occasionally gets one or two right, huh?
So Scott can't martial his abundant verbiage for that, lol.
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ROGER is broadminded enough to reconsider the Fairness Doctrine, to which earlier he said he was opposed.
I here reprint with emphases portions of his article cited at 12:51 above.
IT READS: These days...two out of three Americans get their news from social media sites [which supply us with what we, conservatives or liberals, WANT to hear].
Democracy depends on the integrity of the information we consume, and social media has undermined that. It has created biased alternate realities that have deepened and hardened our partisan divide. If America is to continue as a viable, unified nation, it must restore a healthy multi-perspective discourse.
Breaking up the social network companies won’t solve the problem.... [That] would just result in more, slightly smaller social networks promulgating the same fake and biased content.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution that won’t require years-long antitrust actions, abrogating the First Amendment, killing the sites altogether, or even meddling in their algorithms.
Let’s call it social media rebalancing. And there’s a precedent for it: the Fairness Doctrine.
The Federal Communications Commission created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, requiring radio (and eventually television) broadcasters who aired a point of view to allow “qualified representatives of opposing viewpoints” airtime as well. If you watched local TV in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, you saw such dueling opinion segments on the local news. The rationale was to provide the public with diverse and balanced perspectives, even though a given market might have only three or four TV stations. If a broadcaster failed to live up to the doctrine, it was at risk of losing its government broadcast license, ending its ability to operate.
The amount of enlightening content enabled by the Fairness Doctrine is difficult to measure. But the effect of ending it isn’t. The Reagan administration-controlled FCC suspended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program emerged the following year, followed by a flood of other partisan talk shows.
With dozens of channels and thousands of websites slinging news now, there’s a wide diversity of perspectives on offer. In theory, this should mean that the need for the Fairness Doctrine has dissipated. But there is only one Facebook, only one YouTube, and only one Twitter, and their algorithms together ensure that each individual sees mostly news and opinion consonant with their own perspective — the same sort of problem that the Fairness Doctrine was intended to head off.
Google and Twitter say they’re trying to make things better. A Google spokesperson explained that YouTube’s recommendation system now tends to go from extreme content to more mainstream content, not the reverse. Twitter’s spokesperson pointed out that the company posts warnings on misleading information from political figures like the president. But while social media companies continue to take baby steps away from the worst content, like hate speech, they’ve made only token efforts to compensate for the divide they’ve worsened and the falsehoods they’ve sustained. They’re not held accountable for the damage they continue to create. This has to stop.
BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! ________
There are three of us here on this site who FORCE some fairness to be observed here by posting unwanted commentary that keeps you guys from being as boring and uninformed as you would be without it. You're welcome!
The fairness doctrine would insist that every News network carry conservative viewpoints, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and that the NYT, WaPo. This would mean that all of these media outlets would need to include "one conservative" for every liberal.
That would mean that the NYT (for instance) would have to include an endorsement of the 2024 Republican candidate along with their forgone endorsement of the Democratic Candidate.
They also couldn't get away with offering a liberal and calling them a conservative, when everyone knows that they are not really conservative. They would need to be a true up to date in time conservative (not someone who is there to simply talk about how the Party has lost it's way)... unless of course that is in conjunction with a someone who claims to be a "Liberal" who also hates Democrats.
That means that Tucker Carlson clones would get to have an hour every night on CNN and MSNBC as well.
It means that every tweet issued by Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Schumer would be branded as being possible "disinformation" if conservatives "dispute" their logic.... just as Trump's tweets are flagged.
Everything would actually have to be both sided... and then you would actually understand that 90% of the change would come IN FAVOR of conservative view points.
If I remember correctly, the Fairness Doctrine did not call for absolutely EQUAL time, but for at least SOME opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard.
Actually, ratings would probably go up on carriers who made it clear that there would be some opportunities for such.
I remember many radio broadcasts of "Facing Off" in which Senator Ted Kennedy and other Senators debated. It was sharp, but professional and collegial.
20 comments:
Did out and out lying just become something more dangerous to do?
Voting Technology Company Threatens Lawsuits
1:23 pm
“Dominion Voting Systems has sent letters to Fox News, as well as the right-wing media outlets Newsmax and One America News warning it may sue over the baseless conspiracy theory that the election technology company manipulated the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Business Insider reports.
“Dominion has also sent letters to individual hosts and right-wing media figures, including Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, and Maria Bartiromo, as well as Rush Limbaugh.”
______
(Several of the above have already crawled all over themselves backtracking.)
On topic.
If Great Britain and the EU could become a competitive economy with the United states .
I can't start a thread but the social media era seems to have created an alternate reality Muniverse. This might help.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” These days, though, two out of three Americans get their news from social media sites like Facebook, its subsidiary Instagram, Google’s YouTube, and Twitter. And these sites supply each of us with our own facts, showing conservatives mostly news liked by other conservatives, feeding liberals mostly liberal content.
Democracy depends on the integrity of the information we consume, and social media has undermined that. It has created biased alternate realities that have deepened and hardened our partisan divide. If America is to continue as a viable, unified nation, it must restore a healthy multi-perspective discourse.
Breaking up the social network companies won’t solve the problem. The Federal Trade Commission has initiated antitrust suits against Google and Facebook, the latter supported by attorneys general in 46 states (including Massachusetts). But splitting Instagram from Facebook or YouTube from Google would just result in more, slightly smaller social networks promulgating the same fake and biased content.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution that won’t require years-long antitrust actions, abrogating the First Amendment, killing the sites altogether, or even meddling in their algorithms. Let’s call it social media rebalancing. And there’s a precedent for it: the Fairness Doctrine.
The Federal Communications Commission created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, requiring radio (and eventually television) broadcasters who aired a point of view to allow “qualified representatives of opposing viewpoints” airtime as well. If you watched local TV in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, you saw such dueling opinion segments on the local news. The rationale was to provide the public with diverse and balanced perspectives, even though a given market might have only three or four TV stations. If a broadcaster failed to live up to the doctrine, it was at risk of losing its government broadcast license, ending its ability to operate.
The amount of enlightening content enabled by the Fairness Doctrine is difficult to measure. But the effect of ending it isn’t. The Reagan administration-controlled FCC suspended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program emerged the following year, followed by a flood of other partisan talk shows.
With dozens of channels and thousands of websites slinging news now, there’s a wide diversity of perspectives on offer. In theory, this should mean that the need for the Fairness Doctrine has dissipated. But there is only one Facebook, only one YouTube, and only one Twitter, and their algorithms together ensure that each individual sees mostly news and opinion consonant with their own perspective — the same sort of problem that the Fairness Doctrine was intended to head off.
Google and Twitter say they’re trying to make things better. A Google spokesperson explained that YouTube’s recommendation system now tends to go from extreme content to more mainstream content, not the reverse. Twitter’s spokesperson pointed out that the company posts warnings on misleading information from political figures like the president. But while social media companies continue to take baby steps away from the worst content, like hate speech, they’ve made only token efforts to compensate for the divide they’ve worsened and the falsehoods they’ve sustained. They’re not held accountable for the damage they continue to create. This has to stop.
Voting Technology Company Threatens Lawsuits
Lin Wood wrote them back basically telling them to sue.
and to go fuck themselves.
imagine the discovery phase of that lawsuit. dominion obviously hasn't thought this through.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris star in ‘A Campaign Christmas Carol’
Just as Joe was surrendering to a dreamy slumber, out in the hallway there arose such a clatter. He sprung from his bed to see what was the matter. And to what did his wondering eyes appear, but a wide open front door with an unwanted stranger cursing and planning to smear.
Biden looked up and saw the semi-transparent figure of a spirit wrapped in balls and chains as though he were a heavily laden inmate stumbling around a prison yard. Curiously, one of the strands was more like a rope and didn’t contain any weights, instead dragging what appeared to be two dozen empty booze bottles and beer cans -- Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, Vodka, Budweiser, Sweet Vermouth and at the end, a broken green Carlo Rossi wine magnum circa 1970. The ghostly apparition had very thick jowls and a scrub of greasy hair that seemed like the type you’d find on a politician who’d been to many a brothel -- and dwelled in the senate for half a century.
The ghoul’s smell was overpowering, like a bedridden otherworldly nut house patient who’d been denied a sponge bath for six months. Joe’s keen nose detected a mixture of blood, a rancid ham sandwich, vomit, yeast-infected urine, feces and body odor occupying every corner of the room.
Not immediately recognizing the specter, Joe hesitatingly spoke, “Can you sit down?”
“I can” the ghost replied tersely in a well-worn Harvard Bostonian accent. “Who are you?” Joe inquired. “Ask me who I was” answered the visitor.
“You’re rather particular for a ghost. Okay, who were you?” Joe did as ordered.
“In life I was your senate partner, Teddy Kennedy. I have come back from the grave to warn you, Joe. You must change your ways or you will suffer my fate, to walk through all eternity as a formless nothing, doomed to wander among his fellow humanity as though what we did up on Capitol Hill mattered to anyone. It turns out that the man upstairs didn’t appreciate the way we slandered Robert Bork all those years ago. And the tens of millions of babies who died thanks to the Supreme Court and our feminist lobby’s bought-and-paid-for abortion protection bills? Well, he’s not real wild about those either.”
Joe snickered to himself at the way the spirit described the almighty. ‘Wow,’ he thought, ‘Teddy Kennedy in the afterlife. Who would’ve ever guessed? I would’ve wagered he’d be burning in you-know-where for that Mary Jo Kopechne/Chappaquiddick thing. But it was a long time ago, right? A politician has many more lives than a cat even has. I’m living proof of that!’
“What do you want with me?” Joe inquired.
“Much!” Kennedy snatched an unmarked bottle from the rope and tried to take a swig, throwing it down in frustration upon his failed attempt. “I can’t even drink anymore -- talk about hades,” the old drunk growled. “Never mind. As I said, I’m here to warn you. You’re gonna be visited by three other ghosts tonight who will provide some perspective on what a rotten human being you are and then try to steer you down the path to redemption. One will be here at the stroke of one, another at two and the third, well, she’s a tad mercurial. She’ll be here when she damn well feels like it.”
https://www.conservativehq.org/post/joe-biden-and-kamala-harris-star-in-a-campaign-christmas-carol
Fauci says herd immunity could require nearly 90% to get coronavirus vaccine
Reuters
1:07 PM
By Jonathan Allen
(Reuters) - Herd immunity against the novel coronavirus could require vaccination rates approaching as high as 90%, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the most prominent U.S. infectious disease expert, said in an interview published on Thursday.
More than 1 million Americans have received a first dose of a vaccine since Dec. 14, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, or only about 0.3% of the population.
Fauci, who is advising both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden on the pandemic, acknowledged that he had incrementally increased his estimates from earlier in the year, when he tended to say only 60% to 70% would need to be inoculated for herd immunity to be reached.
"We need to have some humility here," Fauci told the New York Times
"We really don't know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."
His comments came as the country marks grim new daily milestones while contending with the world's deadliest outbreak: it reported more than 3,000 deaths for the second consecutive day on Wednesday. The U.S. death toll reached 326,333 by midnight on Wednesday, according to Reuters data.
That same day, more Americans flew than on any other day since the pandemic emerged in March, with 1,191,123 passengers passing through airport checkpoints, according to data from the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
The data suggested many were disregarding public health experts' advice to avoid traveling to celebrate Christmas Day on Friday. Fauci and other experts say social distancing will be required deep into 2021 as vaccines are slowly rolled out.
The number of travelers was down from 2019, when 1,937,235 flew on Dec. 23. Wednesday's traffic exceeded the previous pandemic-era high set on Nov. 29, the Sunday after the Thanksgiving holiday, when 1,176,091 people passed through TSA checkpoints, preceding new surges in coronavirus cases in many states.
Health care workers, elderly nursing home residents, elected officials and firefighters are among those receiving the vaccines first. Most Americans have been told it could be six months or more before they are eligible for the shots.
Fauci, who was appointed director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1984, said in the interview that he had become more willing to reveal his beliefs as polls show Americans were becoming somewhat less skeptical about the new vaccines. The more infectious a disease is, the higher the rate of vaccination is required to reach a threshold of herd immunity, in which its spread is contained.
"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci, who turned 80 on Thursday, told the Times.
"Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85.'"
Fauci says herd immunity could require nearly 90% to get coronavirus vaccine
So even Fauci admits that he "had said" that it would take 60-70% to acquire herd immunity? Was he lying back then or is he lying now? Sounds like even he admits.... that he is just guessing and doesn't really know squat.
Sounds like even he admits.... that he is just guessing and doesn't really know squat.
fauci is a lot like the alky.
they both make these bold sweeping proclamations based upon nothing other than their opinion, which often turns out to be completely wrong.
What about Trump's bold sweeping assertions that we would be down to near zero cases and deaths within a very few days and that it would be safe to pack the churches for last Easter? And that we had recently turned the corner on this virus?
What about those sweeping assertions?
Most Americans trust Fauci far more than they trust Trump, and for VERY good reasons.
Frustrated Trump Met with Pence Before Break
2:49 pm
“Hours before President Trump retweeted a message for his vice president to ‘act’ in stopping the ratification of the Electoral College, he met for more than an hour in the Oval Office with Mike Pence, whom he has complained recently isn’t doing enough to support his bid to overturn the election,” CNN reports.
Pompeo’s Wife Tested Positive
2:47 pm
“Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s wife tested positive for the coronavirus, after the couple came under criticism for holding parties at the State Department despite a nationwide spike in Covid-19 cases,” Bloomberg reports.
“It wasn’t immediately clear how Susan Pompeo contracted the virus, though she tested positive just before her husband announced Dec. 16 that he was going into quarantine for exposure.”
_________
Attending maskless parties can definitely increase the chance that you will contract the virus.
DUH!
So Reverend...
You are comparing a politician with a epidemiologist in terms of credibility regarding a virus? Sort of like me suggesting that Joe Biden's prediction of 250,000 deaths in December should be compared to what Fauci says?
People should "expect" an epidemiologist with decades of experience to do more than just "guess".
People should "expect" a politician to do things like call a travel ban (that saves thousands of lives) racist... because he is a stupid politician, or to demand that a quarter million people would die before Xmas because he is a stupid politician, or to say that the WHO was wrong to claim a 3% death rate for Covid (and claim it was going to be closer to 1%) because he is a stupid politician... for someone to say we would have a vaccine by the end of the year (when all the experts told him he was crazy) because he is a stupid politician.
Oh wait... I guess the politician occasionally gets one or two right, huh?
Well, Scott, now explain why Americans trust Fauci SO much more than they trust Trump.
That's easy, actually:
He doesn't out and out lie the way Trump does.
And sometimes he admits he's been wrong, the way Trump doesn't.
Now martial your abundant verbiage to explain that.
Roger AmickDecember 24, 2020 at 8:43 AM
The charges were withdrawn."
What winning looks like in Rogers world.
Now martial your abundant verbiage to explain that.
Bwwwwaaaaaa!!!!!
So Scott can't martial his abundant verbiage for that, lol.
BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ROGER is broadminded enough to reconsider the Fairness Doctrine, to which earlier he said he was opposed.
I here reprint with emphases portions of his article cited at 12:51 above.
IT READS:
These days...two out of three Americans get their news from social media sites [which supply us with what we, conservatives or liberals, WANT to hear].
Democracy depends on the integrity of the information we consume, and social media has undermined that. It has created biased alternate realities that have deepened and hardened our partisan divide. If America is to continue as a viable, unified nation, it must restore a healthy multi-perspective discourse.
Breaking up the social network companies won’t solve the problem.... [That] would just result in more, slightly smaller social networks promulgating the same fake and biased content.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution that won’t require years-long antitrust actions,
abrogating the First Amendment,
killing the sites altogether,
or even meddling in their algorithms.
Let’s call it social media rebalancing. And there’s a precedent for it: the Fairness Doctrine.
The Federal Communications Commission created the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, requiring radio (and eventually television) broadcasters who aired a point of view to allow “qualified representatives of opposing viewpoints” airtime as well. If you watched local TV in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, you saw such dueling opinion segments on the local news. The rationale was to provide the public with diverse and balanced perspectives, even though a given market might have only three or four TV stations. If a broadcaster failed to live up to the doctrine, it was at risk of losing its government broadcast license, ending its ability to operate.
The amount of enlightening content enabled by the Fairness Doctrine is difficult to measure. But the effect of ending it isn’t. The Reagan administration-controlled FCC suspended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program emerged the following year, followed by a flood of other partisan talk shows.
With dozens of channels and thousands of websites slinging news now, there’s a wide diversity of perspectives on offer. In theory, this should mean that the need for the Fairness Doctrine has dissipated. But there is only one Facebook, only one YouTube, and only one Twitter, and their algorithms together ensure that each individual sees mostly news and opinion consonant with their own perspective — the same sort of problem that the Fairness Doctrine was intended to head off.
Google and Twitter say they’re trying to make things better. A Google spokesperson explained that YouTube’s recommendation system now tends to go from extreme content to more mainstream content, not the reverse. Twitter’s spokesperson pointed out that the company posts warnings on misleading information from political figures like the president. But while social media companies continue to take baby steps away from the worst content, like hate speech, they’ve made only token efforts to compensate for the divide they’ve worsened and the falsehoods they’ve sustained. They’re not held accountable for the damage they continue to create. This has to stop.
BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
BRING ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!
________
There are three of us here on this site who FORCE some fairness to be observed here by posting unwanted commentary that keeps you guys from being as boring and uninformed as you would be without it. You're welcome!
The fairness doctrine would insist that every News network carry conservative viewpoints, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and that the NYT, WaPo. This would mean that all of these media outlets would need to include "one conservative" for every liberal.
That would mean that the NYT (for instance) would have to include an endorsement of the 2024 Republican candidate along with their forgone endorsement of the Democratic Candidate.
They also couldn't get away with offering a liberal and calling them a conservative, when everyone knows that they are not really conservative. They would need to be a true up to date in time conservative (not someone who is there to simply talk about how the Party has lost it's way)... unless of course that is in conjunction with a someone who claims to be a "Liberal" who also hates Democrats.
That means that Tucker Carlson clones would get to have an hour every night on CNN and MSNBC as well.
It means that every tweet issued by Biden, Pelosi, AOC, Schumer would be branded as being possible "disinformation" if conservatives "dispute" their logic.... just as Trump's tweets are flagged.
Everything would actually have to be both sided... and then you would actually understand that 90% of the change would come IN FAVOR of conservative view points.
The pedo’s not smart, he doesn’t have an original thought in his head
If I remember correctly, the Fairness Doctrine did not call for absolutely EQUAL time, but for at least SOME opportunity for opposing viewpoints to be heard.
Actually, ratings would probably go up on carriers who made it clear that there would be some opportunities for such.
I remember many radio broadcasts of "Facing Off" in which Senator Ted Kennedy and other Senators debated. It was sharp, but professional and collegial.
Here, inform yourselves:
https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2018/09/24/facing-off-senator-ted-kennedy-debates-his-republican-colleagues/
Inform yourselves. You need it.
Nancy Polusie says " No "
To the $2,000 question.
Post a Comment