Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 18, 2021

Often dismissed by political pundits as disaffected and disorganized, low-income voters played a key role in Donald Trump's defeat in the presidential election, according to a new study.
High turnout among low-income voters in the 2020 election -- especially in battleground states -- helped deliver victories for Joe Biden and Democrats in the Senate and House, concluded the study ...

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

American voters were the key to toppling Trump. And so we shall remain.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-10-18 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Well with the expansion of economic inequality under the last cl0wngovernence there were a lot more to choose from don't cha know. The cl0wns continue to poop where they swim.

#2 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2021-10-18 12:34 PM | Reply

Low-Income Voters Were Key to Toppling Trump

So they key to trump's next victory will be blocking or overturning the votes of low income people.

And dems are letting them do it.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-18 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

American voters were the key to toppling Trump. And so we shall remain.

#1 | Posted by moder8

Wake up. Republicans are replacing democracy with fascism under your nose. It no longer matters who american voters pick. Starting in 2022, Republicans will be able to legally ignore the voters and overturn any election they want in any state they control.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-18 12:43 PM | Reply

The Republican political platform has long resembled that of a gallows...

#5 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2021-10-18 12:59 PM | Reply

"Low-Income Voters Were Key to Toppling Trump"

Which is precisely why Republicans want to make it harder for poor people to vote.

Duh.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-18 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Low income people have taken the most damage form the orange plague.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-18 05:57 PM | Reply

And low income voters are the target of most new voter regulations making it more difficult for them to vote.

#8 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-10-18 06:37 PM | Reply

Oops. What #6 | POSTED BY SNOOFY said.

#9 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-10-18 06:39 PM | Reply

400+ million spent by the Zuck.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-10-18 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"And low income voters are the target of most new voter regulations making it more difficult for them to vote."

Never forget their were entire Texas counties with only one drop box for voting.

The point of such a move is obviously voter suppression of Black voters but the willingness to prevent all rural voters from participating is breathtaking.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2021-10-18 07:21 PM | Reply

Low income voters? No, that is the Democrat 'Free ----' crowd that forms the base of their party. Normally, they don't vote because they are not responsible people, but, much like the dead - the Democrats focused their 'get out the vote' activities on them via legal and illegal means like vote harvesting and dumping backpacks full of ballots into the GA voting boxes in the dead of night - this is all on film.

What the country needs to ask is - do we want more voting participation from this group? If your family has a drunk uncle, do we really want his input into how much of the family money is spent on cheap hooch? According to the Dems - OF COURSE! This is also the group that does negotiations with their 3 year olds which leads to lifetime behavior issues so that is not surprising.

So, the only solution is to severely limit the size of the pie you have to distribute by defunding the government. The less money the Dems haves to squander on their pet projects and 'free ----' for votes crowd, the better. The results of their prior spending is unmistakable - broken public schools and a 'war on poverty' less successful than Biden's Afghan debacle.

#12 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-18 09:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"and dumping backpacks full of ballots into the GA voting boxes in the dead of night "

Which turned out to be, of course, a whopping nothingburger.
www.augustachronicle.com

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-18 09:13 PM | Reply

"#13 | POSTED BY "SQUIRTS" DANFROTH"

Squirts, you are trying to debunk the wrong claim. There is video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes being stuffed in the middle of the night.

#14 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-18 09:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#14 | Posted by Skeptical

You're just an idiot.

Everybody knows it.

#15 | Posted by Angrydad at 2021-10-19 07:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#12
Elections by and for the elect.
Sorry, fella, but they dropped you off in the wrong century.

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-10-19 08:02 AM | Reply

SKEPTICAL

"There is video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes being stuffed in the middle of the night."

Unless you have credible proof of that video, you get 4 Pinocchios for that post.

So show us. Mind I said credible.

#17 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-19 08:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Credible?

Haha!

What fun is that?

Trumps supporters (and probably Trump's campaign) put out video of the ballot boxes being stuffed as "proof." The problem was the ballot boxes being stuffed were in Moscow, during the 2018 Russian presidential election.

I remember it well.

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-19 08:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes being stuffed in the middle of the night.
#14 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Do tell. Really? Credible evidence? From where? Produced by whom? Inquiring minds want to know.

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-10-19 08:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Inquiring minds want to know.

Why didn't they present these videos in any of the 60 court cases they lost?

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-19 08:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

There is video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes being stuffed in the middle of the night.

#14 | POSTED BY SKEPTICAL

Link?

#21 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-10-19 10:50 AM | Reply

Credible?

Haha!

What fun is that?

Trumps supporters (and probably Trump's campaign) put out video of the ballot boxes being stuffed as "proof." The problem was the ballot boxes being stuffed were in Moscow, during the 2018 Russian presidential election.

I remember it well.

#18 | POSTED BY YAV

And it probably was Ruskie Troll Farmer "Skeptical" on that video stuffing those ballot boxes in mother Russia.

#22 | Posted by a_monson at 2021-10-19 11:26 AM | Reply

Wow Skeptical, that sounds terrible. Well, it doesn't look like there is a reason for you to vote in the next election, it will be stolen no matter what you do so why show up?

#23 | Posted by dibblda at 2021-10-19 11:31 AM | Reply

#12 Have you listened to Trump supporters? They are delusional hateful idiots.
Democracy means they get to vote too. Thankfully Covid is helping solve that problem.

#24 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-19 11:50 AM | Reply

"Why didn't they present these videos in any of the 60 court cases they lost?"

#20 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Good question.

What say you, Skeptical?

#25 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-19 12:35 PM | Reply

Looks like Stoogical turned tail and ran. Coward.

#26 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-19 03:45 PM | Reply

LEGALLY

I think he's Jakester's evil twin.

#27 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-19 06:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Trumps supporters (and probably Trump's campaign) put out video of the ballot boxes being stuffed as "proof." The problem was the ballot boxes being stuffed were in Moscow, during the 2018 Russian presidential election.
I remember it well.
#18 | POSTED BY YAV"

You don't remember jack ---- - you are just trying to deflect. There is video evidence for one drop box that had a total of 24 people go to the box over a 3 day period yet the vote total from that drop was over 18,000. This is not even debatable - the Dems cheated. However, it is meaningless now and now everyone is aware of the cheating so it will not be possible in the midterms - which is why we are going to have a giant red wave. Population changes and redistricting alone will give the GOP control of congress. With Biden's tanking popularity, he will be in a historic beating.

#28 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-19 10:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There is video evidence for one drop box that had a total of 24 people go to the box over a 3 day period yet the vote total from that drop was over 18,000.

Should have brought that to one of the 60 court cases they lost too.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-19 10:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Should have brought that to one of the 60 court cases they lost too.
#29 | POSTED BY REDIAL "

What is the point? A legal case is not going to overturn an election. All it does do is put people on notice that this will not be acceptable cheat this way in the future.

Biden as president is great for the Trump brand. This incompetent has destroyed the Southern border, embarrassed us in Afghanistan, proved that the President is powerless against covid, and gave people runaway inflation. Basically, everything that Trump said and did is proven correct by the actions of Biden. You could not ask for a better poster child for Democrat incompetence.

#30 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-19 11:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What is the point?

Makes you not look so stupid showing up in court with no evidence to back up your silly claims?

#31 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-19 11:23 PM | Reply

"Makes you not look so stupid showing up in court with no evidence to back up your silly claims?
#31 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

It was stupid to go to court in the first place. The Dems cheated and the GOP was negligent in enforcing election rules - the cheat was enabled way before election day. So, no point crying about it. The correct actions are to expose the fraud and get rid of the people that allowed the fraud to occur - which has been happening. You want to bet on if Maricopa AZ is blue again in the mid-terms? Or that Milwaukee will produce vote totals even 80% of the 2020 counts? Dems need a new way of cheating - also, I find it very fitting that it has been established without ANY DOUBT that voting machines were connected to the internet despite claims to the contrary by Dominion, etc - yet, this is swept under the carpet. However, in 2022, these games will no longer be possible, which is a good thing.

#32 | Posted by Skeptical at 2021-10-19 11:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

It was stupid to go to court in the first place.

I'll give you that one.

#33 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-10-19 11:34 PM | Reply

The Dems didn't cheat, the GOP did. All you have is lies regurgitated after swallowing the ooze from Trumps diaper.
The GOP did their best to disenfranchise urban voters with ridiculous multi-hour line ups. The party of the secretary of state should forfeit all elections if voting lines are longer than two hours.

The GOP cheating helped them do well in 2020. Trump might have won if it wasn't for the compelling arguments put forth by patriotic republicans in republican accountability and the Lincoln project. They spoke truth to conservatives and helped Biden beat down Trump by over 6 million votes.
Dems are grateful there are a few republicans with integrity, unlike the Trump simps like yourself.

#34 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-20 01:19 AM | Reply

34 | POSTED BY BORED

You are a very dumb person.

#35 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The Dems cheated"

62 court cases to the contrary.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:27 AM | Reply

SKEPTICAL

Your #32 was a lot of huffing and puffing but still haven't produced the video tape of ballot box stuffing.

#37 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-20 01:28 AM | Reply

"The correct actions are to expose the fraud "

Be sure to do that when it happens.

As it is, the Texas Lt. Gov has welched on his offer of up to $1 million for anyone with proof of voting fraud, after his PA counterpart found a few fraudulent votes for Trump.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:34 AM | Reply

"still haven't produced the video tape of ballot box stuffing."

That's because he was lying about it.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:35 AM | Reply

The 2020 election was highly irregular - massive increases with mail-in voting, early ballot drop boxes put out haphazardly, significant rule changes late in the process, more ballot-harvesting than usual and some really weird massive influx of Biden-only ballots coming through at the last moment....

I understand the skepticism....where is the proof that the level of fraud (every election this country's history had fraud to some degree) was sufficient to swing the election?

Trump's team never even came close to making a substantive case in court and what they did provide was laughable.

The tight control over information between an unholy cabal between most of the media, the Democratic Party and Big Tech is by far the biggest threat to our democracy. It was utterly disgusting and it went way beyond the hunter Biden laptop story, which we can debate the degree to which it should be regarded as a scandal - it was nevertheless very newsworthy and it was a story that was blacked out with tremendous coordination.

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:49 AM | Reply

DANFORTH

"That's because he was lying about it."

Of course he was. I was just rubbing his nose in it. I wonder if he gets paid by the lie . . . or the number of words it takes to tell it.

It's the lie, not the credibility of the lie, that counts when he turns in his billing hours.

#41 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-20 02:28 AM | Reply

" Trump's team never even came close to making a substantive case in court and what they did provide was laughable. The tight control over information between an unholy cabal between most of the media, the Democratic Party and Big Tech is by far the biggest threat to our democracy."

So your conclusion is Trump only failed to produce evidence of fraud because of a vast left-wing conspiracy, all of whom colluded to keep the truth from the American people?!?

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:34 AM | Reply

"the hunter Biden laptop story"

Yeah, that was the one where the serious newspapers asked to see any proof, and all passed after they saw what was proffered.

And of course, any laptop passed around between anyone and Guilliani for months, immediately has chain-of-custody issues.

Ultimately, this malarkey is brought to you by those who were silent when Trump's kids got caught stealing millions from charities.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:46 AM | Reply

So your conclusion is Trump only failed to produce evidence of fraud because of a vast left-wing conspiracy, all of whom colluded to keep the truth from the American people?!?

#42 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-10-20 02:34 AM

No, not at all. Trump's team failed first and foremost because they were utterly incompetent. That was the first layer. Second layer is that what they did produce was risible - The level of fraud they "proved" fell well below the standard needed to show that 3 (not 1, but 3) swing states had enough collective fraud to flip the election.

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:46 AM | Reply

"The level of fraud they "proved""

What level was that? Because the amount they admitted as evidence was ZERO.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:48 AM | Reply

#43 Dismiss it any way you want. It's still growing legs but more importantly it was absolutely a legitimate news story that was squashed by the very same cabal that promoted the ludicrous Steele Dossier to the nth degree.

This was an unprecedented coordination between multiple institutions to control political messaging to a degree that I've never witnessed...

#46 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:50 AM | Reply

"The level of fraud they "proved""

What level was that? Because the amount they admitted as evidence was ZERO.

#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-10-20 02:48 AM

Yes - if you just read the remainder of my sentence, that you cut off, you will see that I acknowledge that.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:51 AM | Reply

"Trump's team failed first and foremost because they were utterly incompetent."

No, they failed to produce fraud because it didn't exist, other than incredibly rare circumstances, and when it did, the scofflaws were almost always Trumpers. For example, in the MI case, one small set of counted questionable ballots were skipped when the plaintiffs couldn't find any questionable ballots that went for Biden.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:56 AM | Reply

" it was absolutely a legitimate news story that was squashed by the very same cabal that promoted the ludicrous Steele Dossier to the nth degree."

So all the newspapers trying to scoop each other daily decided to skip it that day??? D'you know how stupid that sounds?

How about this: When shown the "evidence", even the sleaziest of outlets found it too sleazy.

Sounds a lot more probable than a blackout conspiracy.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:01 AM | Reply

#48 Yes, I read about that.

This election absolutely had a lot of unprecedented irregularities. No evidence has been provided to show that these irregularities coupled with fraud tilted the vote counts enough in 3 states to show Biden stole the election.

#50 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 03:02 AM | Reply

So all the newspapers trying to scoop each other daily decided to skip it that day??? D'you know how stupid that sounds?

In another era, yes. How do you explain Twitter and Facebook killing the story on their platforms? Seriously. Let's start there.

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 03:05 AM | Reply

" This was an unprecedented coordination between multiple institutions to control political messaging to a degree that I've never witnessed..."

You must've missed when every Sinclair-owned station in America had to read the same warning about "fake news". Here's a compilation of dozens:
theweek.com

Now you've witnessed worse.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:05 AM | Reply

#52 That was one of the stupidest things I've ever watched.

You seem like a smart person.

Please do better.

Also - I don't indulge trolling. That video was absolutely pathetic. If you think it made any kind of point - it did the opposite.

I'm all about having a discussion...pull that crap out and it seems you don't want an honest discussion...

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 03:10 AM | Reply

" How do you explain Twitter and Facebook killing the story on their platforms?"

The same reasons they kill lies about covid misinformation.

I realize you really really really want all this to be true, but in any other situation you be pointing out the Swiss cheese holes in this, as well as the fact the author REFUSED TO HAVE HIS NAME associated with the article.

If newspapers passing on the story after seeing the "evidence" doesn't scare you off, and the author refusing a byline on a story as big as you're pretending doesn't wise you up ...

... well, the problem is in your camp, nowhere else.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:11 AM | Reply

" That was one of the stupidest things I've ever watched."

Yep. And all to do what you just warned about.

" it seems you don't want an honest discussion"

Huh? You keep saying silly or stupid things, and I keep having to deal with them.

But if you wanna have an honest discussion, let's pick up where we left off last night: do your civil liberties include the constitutional right to infect as many people with Covid as you want?

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:15 AM | Reply

" That video was absolutely pathetic. If you think it made any kind of point - it did the opposite."

I think it rubs your nose in your ludicrous statement; if you've never seen a coordinated effort to control the message, it's because you've never bothered to look.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:18 AM | Reply

DANFORTH

I don't think those 60+ court cased were meant to prove fraud. They were only meant to plant seeds of doubt and suspicion in the minds of the gullible about democracy.

Trump's objective from the beginning has been to kill democracy, not correct it. Giuliani's overreach was only one link in a multi-faceted plan, which includes (but not limited to) state legislation and phony audits, which continues to permeate the public negative perception to this very day.

Only the Supreme Court can put an end to this and, at the moment, they're very iffy.

#57 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-10-20 03:18 AM | Reply

#54 That story had WAY more substantiation that the 4 years of Trump/Russia collusion stories that were NOT censored over the past 4 years.

Challenging the veracity of it is 1 thing - actively killing it via coordination between Dems, Major Media and Big Tech is dangerous.

By any objective standard it was a legitimate news story - it was up to the people to determine if what was reported showed corruption.

How about this:

Letter: Hunter Biden repeatedly used the "N" word in texts

tucson.com

Almost a complete blackout by our major media outlets. Had those exact same texts been sent by Donald Trump Jr....

Why did our media suppress that story when much less powerful people have been cancelled for far less?

PS - Those texts were between Hunter and a lawyer whom he had a person friendship with and most likely were in jest - those were presumed to be private and 10 years ago would have likely gone unnoticed - but in this woke cancel culture era....lefty -------- made these rules and have destroyed countless lives over far less - live up to these stupid rules or, better yet, begin to repudiate them as a matter of principle.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 03:22 AM | Reply

"Seriously. Let's start there."

No, let's start where the NY Post author refused a byline, and every other major paper passed on what you've admitted, if true, would be a bombshell story, and quite possibly a prizewinning or career-making subject.

What does that tell you?

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:23 AM | Reply

" #54 That story had WAY more substantiation that the 4 years of Trump/Russia collusion stories"

You mean like when DJTJ met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary? Or when Manafort gave sensitive polling data to a Russian? Or was it one of the other 100 meetings Team Trump had with Russians while lying to Americans the whole time?

You keep making these ludicrous statements as if repetition would suddenly make it true.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:27 AM | Reply

" actively killing it via coordination between Dems, Major Media and Big Tech"

Riiiiiight. Because there are no Republicans in Big Tech, or Major Media.

Can you taste the stupid when you post something that dumb?

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" better yet, begin to repudiate them as a matter of principle."

Remember when you repudiated Trump's kids for stealing money from charities?

NO ONE ELSE DOES, EITHER.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" I don't think those 60+ court cased were meant to prove fraud."

They weren't. They didn't have any to begin with, and every time a judge asked if they were claiming fraud, Team Trump was quick to answer " ... no, your honor, no fraud."

The only place they claimed fraud was from the podium, and never in the courtroom.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't remember jack ---- - you are just trying to deflect. There is video evidence for one drop box that had a total of 24 people go to the box over a 3 day period yet the vote total from that drop was over 18,000. This is not even debatable

First point: "Social media users have been sharing a video, claiming that it shows a ballot box in Michigan being stuffed with ballot papers. However, the video was taken in the Moscow region of Russia in the 2018 Russian presidential election."

Second: Provide proof or STFU.

Third: That would have been a hellova story. If it had been true. Which it obviously isn't.

Fourth: You're right about one thing; this is not even debatable

#64 | Posted by YAV at 2021-10-20 07:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#59. So, you have no justification for that story being suppressed in a coordinated fashion.

You give the game away with #62.

#65 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 10:57 AM | Reply

" So, you have no justification for that story being suppressed in a coordinated fashion"

Sure I do: folks whose livelihoods and reputations are at stake looked at what the accusers claimed, and concluded it didn't pass the smell test.

Meanwhile, you've read a few slanted stories, and decided for yourself you know more than the folks who got to see whatever "evidence" was available.

Reporters refusing bylines on front-page stories, and multiple newspapers refusing to run with it once they saw the "proof", should tell you volumes. The fact you've decided to ignore all that makes you look like an idiot.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 11:34 AM | Reply

#66 you are conflating a lack of coverage, which has aged very badly, just ask Politico, with a coordinated, nakedly partisan effort to suppress it.

NYT refuses to cover it? Ok. Of course they published "Anonymous" which turned out to be complete garbage and they knew it at the time, but did it anyway. Twitter and Facebook didn't prevent that story from being shared on their massive and influential platforms. They totally buried the laptop story. No way to justify that in an intellectually honest way. They enjoy Section 230 protections because they are supposed to be open platforms.

#67 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 12:25 PM | Reply

" Ok. Of course they published..."

So you've decided to bang on the NYT for learning from their error? What a jerk.

"They totally buried the laptop story"

Just like every other news outlet, after seeing the "evidence".

"No way to justify that in an intellectually honest way."

At least not honest from you. But if every other outlet passed on it for lack of credibility, and you take than to PROVE it's credible, you just believe because you want to believe, Tinkerbell.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 12:31 PM | Reply

#68. Can you justify Twitter and Facebook suppressing it?

Given your apparent anger and lashing out at me personally, I'm guessing you can't.

#69 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 12:35 PM | Reply

#68. Politico eventually covered it After the election, of course. How convenient. But that's a distraction from my point - how do you justify big tech censoring the story?

#70 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 12:37 PM | Reply

"Can you justify Twitter and Facebook suppressing it? "

Sure: either they were part of the group shown the "evidence", or were alerted by those who did.

Seriously...why wouldn't ALL the outlets fight with each other for coverage after seeing what a bombshell story this is? Wouldn't that be the sensible outcome, if there was any "there" there?

You're trying to pretend it was a monster conspiracy between every major outlet in the world to suppress, because they're all secretly out to get you. In reality, it was a collective yawn at the nothingburger.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 12:42 PM | Reply

^those who did = those who were (shown the so-called "evidence")

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 12:43 PM | Reply

"#68. Politico eventually covered it After the election, of course."

Link?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 12:44 PM | Reply

#71 you didn't justify big tech suppression. You addressed a lack of coverage from other news outlets. Two completely different issues.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 12:53 PM | Reply

#73

I'm posting from my phone.

Here is a link that references the Politico article

www.foxnews.com

#75 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 12:56 PM | Reply

I see bellrung is still mad that the majority of Americans saw through the lies of the fascist GQP. Almost the entire republican leadership is corrupt beyond redemption. Most have benefited from Putin's bribes. They serve the oligarchs and pander to the deplorables.

#76 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-20 12:57 PM | Reply

"you didn't justify big tech suppression."

Sure I did: they saw the evidence, there wasn't any, so they decided they wouldn't promote the types of lies you feel quite comfortable promoting.

Clear enough for you?

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"big tech suppression"

You mean the same people who block purposeful lies about Covid?

Same reason.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#77 and #78

Wow. That is some serious intellectual gymnastics. Congrats. I guess.

#79 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:07 PM | Reply

A person who had independent access to Hunter Biden's emails confirmed he did receive a 2015 email from a Ukrainian businessman thanking him for the chance to meet Joe Biden. The same goes for a 2017 email in which a proposed equity breakdown of a venture with Chinese energy executives includes the line, "10 held by H for the big guy?" (This person recalled seeing both emails, but was not in a position to compare the leaked emails word-for-word to the originals.)

MORE: Emails released by a Swedish government agency also match emails in the leaked cache, and two people who corresponded with Hunter Biden confirmed emails from the cache were genuine.

^
There's no evidence of wrongdoing by either Hunter or Joe there.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Wow. That is some serious intellectual gymnastics."

Dude...the only gymnastics being done are by the guy who won't address the fact all the folks shown the evidence passing on the story, and the sole outlet's author refusing to have his name connected to it.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:12 PM | Reply

First off under Section 230 they are supposed to be open platforms. At most minimal censoring. A few years ago things got really bad when human monsters started posting horrific and brutal acts of violence and cruelty on Facebook. So the company hired contractors to police that. Numerous who took on that work suffer from PTSD over what they saw. The censorious nature of these platforms started with that type of thing.

Unfortunately and somewhat predictably it became political. It's reached a point where COVID "misinformation" is censored by these platforms, as if questioning the efficacy of masks worn by elementary school children is on par with a video of a man sodomizing an 8 year old girl.

There is no justification for censoring a big news scoop that has held up very well by big tech. There is nothing "dangerous" about the laptop story, especially given that it's held up.

#82 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:18 PM | Reply

#80 I disagree. And that's fine. We can debate whether it was corrupt or not. What hasn't been established is an honest justification for big tech suppressing this story. It's absolutely newsworthy.

#83 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:21 PM | Reply

"#80 I disagree."

What wrongdoing do you see, that I don't?

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:23 PM | Reply

"under Section 230 they are supposed to be open platforms."

So are you arguing Covid misinformation shouldn't be suppressed???

" as if questioning the efficacy of masks worn by elementary school children..."

That science has been done. And done. And it's been proven. At this point, LIES ABOUT MASKS CAN BE FATAL.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:26 PM | Reply

This is one of those threads people who didn't vote for Trump, fight tooth and nail to convincing everyone how the Democrats cheated and Trump won.

Almost a year since the election and loser Trumpers are still crying.

Good news. Red states have made it virtually impossible for Democrats to win any more elections.

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-20 01:26 PM | Reply

#84. I see a ton of wrongdoing. But that's a distraction.

This was and remains a legitimate news story and big tech suppressed it. Thus far no consistent justification has been proffered to justify suppression of the story by big tech, particularly in context of what other stories those outlets allow to be shared.

#87 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:27 PM | Reply

"What hasn't been established is an honest justification for big tech suppressing this story. "

No, it's been established quite well.

What's also been established is majors passing after seeing evidence and authors refusing a front-page byline doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in you.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:28 PM | Reply

"I see a ton of wrongdoing. "

Like what?

Be specific, because you "see" a LOT of things that aren't there, and you refuse to see two VERY obvious clues right under your nose.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:29 PM | Reply

"Thus far no consistent justification has been proffered to justify suppression of the story by big tech"

It's been proffered; you just refuse to apply common sense.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 01:30 PM | Reply

BellRinger sounds like an Alzheimer patient trying to hide the fact that they can't remember things.

Poor guy can't even remember his old username!

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:30 PM | Reply

#85 are you going to conflate medical information with a political scoop being suppressed in a platform that is supposed to be open under Section 230?

I find your reasoning to be false on a very broad scale. Having said that I'm trying to keep this focused - no justification for suppressing the laptop story.

#92 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:31 PM | Reply

Section 230 does not include any kind of "duty to publish."

Your argument is inane.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:34 PM | Reply

#90. Did you see my link with Politico actually reporting on it? They didn't report anything new, BTW.

Yet a protected 230 platform suppressed this story.

Those same platforms suppressed the lab leak theory only to back off when, with no new information, media outlets decided to cover it.

#94 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:35 PM | Reply

#93. It was suppression. Those pkatforms blocked the story from being shared. Don't be dishonest

#95 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:36 PM | Reply

Again, there is no "duty to publish" so claims of "suppression" have no basis in Section 230.

Do you disagree with that too?

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:38 PM | Reply

Bellringer, it appears to me that you are the one being dishonest. There was no "suppression". You just disagree with the editorial decisions.

#97 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-10-20 01:39 PM | Reply

" What's also been established is majors passing after seeing evidence and authors refusing a front-page byline doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in you."

NYT published a block buster story under the pseudonym of "Anonymous" about high level bureaucrats openly defying Trump. They pumped this "whistleblower" as someone high up in the administration. As it turns out this high level official was actually a mid level nobody. It was a major story at the time. The laptop story is far stronger from an evidentiary standpoint. As was proper Big Tech allowed "anonymous" to be shared openly on their platforms but they suppressed the laptop story.

#98 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:43 PM | Reply

#97. Under Section 230 they don't get to make editorial decisions. Once they make editorial decisions they lose Section 230 protections and privileges. Can't have it both ways.

#99 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:45 PM | Reply

47 U.S. Code 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

How can they run afoul of a law that protects them?
???

Again, there's no duty to publish. They can publish what they want, as long as it's not illegal.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:46 PM | Reply

"Under Section 230 they don't get to make editorial decisions."

Under the First Amendment they do.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:47 PM | Reply

#93 nobody was arguing they had a duty to publish. They suppressed this story. Huge difference.

#102 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:48 PM | Reply

"Huge difference."

What's the difference?

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:49 PM | Reply

So you're saying anything they chose not to publish is suppressed?
They didn't print your Letter To The Editor. You were suppressed!

You have a victim mentality. Why do Deplorables always portray themselves as victims?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 01:52 PM | Reply

#104. They blocked not only the story itself but blocked users from sharing the story. Zuckerberg and Dorsey admitted this to congress and Dorsey sheepishly admitted it was " a mistake". It was clearly intentional

#105 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 01:58 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Jeez. Reading through your last couple of posts (I can't get that time back in my life) I'm astonished by the dishonesty.

#106 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:01 PM | Reply

"a platform that is supposed to be open under Section 230?"

Why are you pretending 230 demands particular behavior from the companies? 230 is all about shackling government.

In this case, you're p'd off because they wouldn't fall for the same horse manure you did.

#107 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Under Section 230 they don't get to make editorial decisions."

YOU LIE.

Or you're too stupid to understand what the law is about. Your choice.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Once they make editorial decisions they lose Section 230 protections and privileges."

That is NOT what the law says.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:13 PM | Reply

"a political scoop being suppressed "

More pretense.

Multiple outlets looked at the "evidence" proffered. NONE of them bit, with one exception, and that "author" demanded his name be released from a front-page bombshell. This "scoop" doesn't pass the smell test, and didn't for virtually every reporter from the start.

But don't let that deter you, person who can't name a single law that was broken.

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:17 PM | Reply

You're also completely misunderstanding the concept of 230:

Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230

That says they CAN make editorial decisions.

Oops.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#110. First off you are moving the goalposts and the fact that you are trying to make it personal is very telling.

You are venturing into Snoofy territory. You are badly trying to justify suppression and censorship of a legitimate news story.

#112 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:21 PM | Reply

#111. I'm game. Can you link that quote? I'm not interested in destroying the source. I just want context. I'm always wary of a quote that is as narrow as what you printed.

#113 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:25 PM | Reply

"You are badly trying to justify suppression and censorship of a legitimate news story."

You're still pretending the reason reporters avoided the story was a vast left-wing conspiracy. And you haven't addressed why the author of the Post story refused a front-page byline.

But back to a central issue: why did you lie about responsibilities to publish under 230? The law says they HAVE editorial discretion. You said they don't, or once they exercise it, they lose 230 protections. Courts have held the exact opposite.

Do you now admit all your claims about 230 were BS?

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:27 PM | Reply

"Can you link that quote? "

www.dmlp.org

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:27 PM | Reply

No fraud, no proof, no brains. Typical Republicant.

#116 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-10-20 02:28 PM | Reply

(This is usually the part of the conversation where Goatman moves the goalposts or segues into a totally different issue.)

#117 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-10-20 02:28 PM | Reply

" the fact that you are trying to make it personal is very telling."

I'm not making it personal; I'd call anyone a moron who fell for something after reporters seeing the "evidence" passed. And I'd particularly jump on them for not being warned off when the author himself refused a front-page byline. In my experience, that just doesn't happen with a legitimate story.

But since you're so sure it's legit...what laws did Hunter break?

#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:30 PM | Reply

Snoofy,
Jeez. Reading through your last couple of posts (I can't get that time back in my life) I'm astonished by the dishonesty.
#106 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Again, no examples.
You say there's wrongdoing in the Hunter Biden emails.
What is it?

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:35 PM | Reply

You are badly trying to justify suppression and censorship of a legitimate news story.
#112 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I don't need to justify the First Amendment.

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:35 PM | Reply

"I'm astonished by the dishonesty."
~Bellringer

"Under Section 230 they don't get to make editorial decisions. Once they make editorial decisions they lose Section 230 protections and privileges."
~also Bellringer

#121 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:36 PM | Reply

#115. Thank you for the link. It was informative and educated on the extremes of 230. If anything it weakened your argument but if didn't kill your position, so there is that

#122 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:37 PM | Reply

#118. So Politico is a bunch of morons?

#123 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:38 PM | Reply

"If anything it weakened your argument"

Goy any examples?

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:39 PM | Reply

"If anything it weakened your argument "

You don't comprehend very well, do you? It totally EVISCERATED your dishonest claim.

Astonishing.

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:39 PM | Reply

More gaslighting by BellRetard.

#126 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-20 02:40 PM | Reply

------------- is going to have to change his handle again after this curbstomping.

#127 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2021-10-20 02:41 PM | Reply

The laptop story has far better evidentiary backing and actually has on the record witnesses compared with hundreds of anti Trump stories that were exclusively anonymous sources that later fell apart under a modicum of scrutiny. The key difference is big tech only suppressed one story.

#128 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:42 PM | Reply

Time for BellRinger to declare victory and move on to the next thread.

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:42 PM | Reply

#128 But where's the wrongdoing on Hunter Biden's laptop?

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:43 PM | Reply

"The laptop story has far better evidentiary backing..."

In your dreams.

"The key difference is big tech only suppressed one story."

...he says, ignoring the key difference was experienced reporters saw the "evidence" and refused to fall for it.

Quick question: was the author trying to suppress the story when he refused the front-page byline on this bomb(shell)?

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 02:44 PM | Reply

Compare/contrast how big tech bandied the laptop story vs NYT "Anonymous" and do so in the context of the journalistic strength of the two stories. One was deliberately suppressed the other was openly allowed and was shared freely.

#132 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:44 PM | Reply

Bandied = handled.

#133 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 02:46 PM | Reply

#132 That's not wrongdoing.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 02:48 PM | Reply

The key difference is big tech only suppressed one story.

#128 | Posted by BellRinger

Is this the same "big tech" who helped spread trumps fascist hateful lies even when they were in clear violation of the terms of service?

The same "big tech" who adjusted their algorithm to let his hate and misinformation to spread more easily?

#135 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 02:49 PM | Reply

The Hunter laptop story died because it's stupid and the witness is literally blind.

#136 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-20 02:49 PM | Reply

#132 Anonymous story was the testimony of a real person who had a high level position in the Tramp administration. He wrote a book and its claims have stood up to scrutiny.
The Hunter laptop story smelled of Russian propaganda orchestrated by traitor Ghouliani and had no evidence that would be admissible in court.

Miles told the truth, Ghouliani lied. That is the difference.

#137 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-20 03:29 PM | Reply

#136 the laptop story still has legs. See Politico coverage of it.

#138 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 03:31 PM | Reply

The story is dumb. PLEASE keep it running, it really cost Joe Biden the election. LOL

#139 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-20 03:33 PM | Reply

Bellrung still peddling Fascist lies, what a simp.

#140 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-20 03:38 PM | Reply

"the laptop story still has legs."

That's just a headless chicken, doing the two-step after every reputable publication cut off its top.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:39 PM | Reply

"See Politico coverage of it."

Didn't Politico get bought out by someone with a decidedly different slant?

#142 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:40 PM | Reply

The problem with the laptop story is it's premise is flawed.

It's a guilt-by-association attack against Joe Biden by sliming his son. It didn't work for the election and it has zero legs now.

#143 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-20 03:45 PM | Reply

"It's a guilt-by-association attack against Joe Biden by sliming his son."

Brought to you by the same folks who were dead silent when Trump's kids were caught "misappropriating" millions donated to charity.

#144 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 03:50 PM | Reply

#136 the laptop story still has legs. See Politico coverage of it.
#138 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

No it doesn't.
If there was something there, you could say where the wrongdoing is.
But you can't say that.

#145 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 04:08 PM | Reply

#143

The laptop story has:

2 named sources
Physical evidence including a signed receipt by Hunter Biden whose signature was authenticated by a handwriting specialist.
When promoting his book when asked about the laptop Hunter sheepishly admitted it could be his. Hunter's former business partner went on the record that those emails, which show a pay for influence partnership between the son and the big guy ... .WAY stronger from a journalistic standpoint than dozens of "walls are closing in stories" that relied exclusively on anonymous sources and most of those stories ended up falling apart over time. Only one was deliberately suppressed by big tech. THAT is what you've all failed to address in context. Pee tape stories were allowed to be shared and promoted yet thus one story was suppressed.

#146 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 04:26 PM | Reply

"The laptop story has:"

...nothing illegal.

What's the bombshell? That it's a bomb?

Or is the story that some people will believe anything once they've gargled Trump's balls enough?

#147 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 04:29 PM | Reply

#146 | Posted by BellRinger a

After bengazi your cult lost all credibility about the supposed "scandals" you focus on. Grilling hillary for 11 hours under oath and unable to get anything on her, then protecting trump from testifying from 11 seconds over actual real intentional scandals.

So tell those of us who aren't in the right wing bubble of lies - what is the worst case fantasy scenario for this "laptop" story?

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 04:32 PM | Reply

"Only one was deliberately suppressed by big tech."

You always leave out "after making an editorial decision based on the proof they got to see".

Isn't that the salient part?

#149 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 04:32 PM | Reply

*FOR 11 seconds

#150 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 04:34 PM | Reply

#147 It's a legitimate story with FAR stronger journalistic backing than dozens of thinly sourced Trump stories that Big Tech allowed to be promoted and shared.

Whether or not the content of the emails constitutes a scandal is up for debate. What you (and everyone else) are trying to dance around is the fact that Big Tech deliberately suppressed this story whilst allowing countless other, far weaker stories from an editorial and journalistic standpoint, to freely circulate on their platforms.

#148 The GOP WAY over-played Benghazi. It's become a punchline now and rightfully so.

#151 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 04:46 PM | Reply

" It's a legitimate story with FAR stronger journalistic backing than dozens of thinly sourced Trump stories that Big Tech allowed to be promoted and shared."

So you're saying it didn't suck as much as the suckiest bad story you can think of? Some bar to clear, Chumley.

"Whether or not the content of the emails constitutes a scandal is up for debate"

Debate it: what exactly is in the emails, and what scandal do you have?

"far weaker stories from an editorial and journalistic standpoint"

Isn't that a decision made in the editor's room? And wasn't that the same editorial decision as all the major papers made, both right-and-left leaning?

"Big Tech deliberately suppressed this story"

Yes, for the same reasons BT deliberately suppresses lies about Covid.

#152 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 04:52 PM | Reply

Yes, for the same reasons BT deliberately suppresses lies about Covid.

#152 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Apples and pumpkins. You keep glossing over the fact they allowed FAR weaker political stories to be promoted and shared.

What constitutes "lies about Covid"? The lab leak theory? At one time it did. Now, it's treated as a legitimate possibility.

Since you keep trying to move the goalposts I'm going to quote your favorite redhead and 'circle back' to my point - please explain why "anonymous" was allowed to be freely promoted and circulated on these platforms but "laptop" was aggressively suppressed. If you are going to make the case that this decision was 'editorial' - your informative link laid out that in order to receive Section 230 protections these platforms editorial discretion is EXTREMELY narrow.

#153 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 04:59 PM | Reply

Hell, after the fact Jack Dorsey sheepishly admitted under oath in front of congress that his platform "made a mistake" suppressing this story.

It wasn't an honest mistake - it was deliberate and nakedly partisan.

#154 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 05:03 PM | Reply

Whether or not the content of the emails constitutes a scandal is up for debate. What you (and everyone else) are trying to dance around is the fact that Big Tech deliberately suppressed this story whilst allowing countless other, far weaker stories from an editorial and journalistic standpoint, to freely circulate on their platforms.

#148 The GOP WAY over-played Benghazi. It's become a punchline now and rightfully so.

#151 | Posted by BellRinger

So what's the scandal? What's the worst case scenario?

It must be REALLY HORRIBLE to make all of right wing media focus on it for months right?

It's hilarious to hear you whining about big tech "suppressing" one story when they allowed THOUSANDS of lethal right wing lies to be freely distributed over recent years.

#155 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 05:03 PM | Reply

#155 It was a story that was germane to the election of POTUS.

Apparently the ends justify the means with you because you are on the side of virtue and anyone who disagrees with you is an evil villain - in your own mind, of course. Most people have a more nuanced view of things. The really funny thing is you totally embody everything you project onto your perceived enemies.

#156 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 05:07 PM | Reply

"You keep glossing over the fact they allowed FAR weaker political stories to be promoted and shared."

Meanwhile, you keep glossing over the fact the editors made an editorial decision, after seeing (or hearing about) the same evidence that made the newspapers turn tail, and the author himself refuse a front-page byline.

Anyone with sense would be warned off. Clearly, that doesn't include you.

"please explain why "anonymous" was allowed to be freely promoted..."

That was the truth.

"...but "laptop" was aggressively suppressed. "

Because after seeing the evidence, they decided it was a lie. Newspapers, right and left, ran from it, after seeing what was proffered. And one reporter refused a front-page byline. Those occurrences set off alarm bells to anyone with a functioning brain.

#157 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 05:08 PM | Reply

"after the fact Jack Dorsey sheepishly admitted under oath in front of congress that his platform "made a mistake" suppressing this story."

That was just a CYA, so the Reich-wingers didn't go all January 6th on his hide.

He'd do the same thing again, given the level of evidence. So would the newspaper editors.

#158 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 05:18 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, you keep glossing over the fact the editors made an editorial decision, after seeing (or hearing about) the same evidence that made the newspapers turn tail, and the author himself refuse a front-page byline

Except that to this day all of the evidence in that story has held up, and to the extent since then it has been looked into (handwriting analysis being one example) it's been strengthened.

"please explain why "anonymous" was allowed to be freely promoted..."

That was the truth.

It was "the truth" that 'anonymous' was a high level official in the Trump administration? He was a mid-level bureaucrat. NYT knew that and LIED that he was high up in the administration. That lie lead to speculation that the source of that article might have even been Mike Pence.

#157 I laid out points as to how it was a much stronger story than dozens of others that were NOT suppressed. You refuse to address or acknowledge that. I even pointed out that Dorsey admitted it was a mistake (conveniently after the election) and you ignore that too. Nothing in the original reporting has been disproven and the evidence in the story is far stronger than countless other stories ripping Republicans that DON'T get suppressed.

The discussion has gotten circular and I have to make dinner. Have a nice evening.

#159 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 05:19 PM | Reply

#155 It was a story that was germane to the election of POTUS.

Apparently the ends justify the means with you because you are on the side of virtue and anyone who disagrees with you is an evil villain - in your own mind, of course. Most people have a more nuanced view of things. The really funny thing is you totally embody everything you project onto your perceived enemies.

#156 | Posted by BellRinger

Whatever side you want to say I'm on, it's better than your side, which is a parade of fascists, klansmen, nazis, and confederates.

Why do you share the same political goals as groups that are universally known as evil?

Now AGAIN - what is the potential scandal about the laptop? You can't just keep crying about a laptop and suppression without telling us what the problem is.

#160 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 05:19 PM | Reply

That was just a CYA

He was under oath. Are you suggesting he perjured himself?

#161 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 05:20 PM | Reply

#160 The problem is censorship. Those supposedly open platforms had no viable reason to suppress that story yet they chose to do so anyways. That is a huge problem if big corporations are going to have that much control over the flow of information in this country.

And spare me your self-righteous nonsense. I strongly oppose all of those horrible caricatures you so easily assign to me. People can disagree about things without being evil in the process. It's ridiculous that you don't appear capable of grasping that.

#162 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 05:29 PM | Reply

#160 The problem is censorship. Those supposedly open platforms had no viable reason to suppress that story yet they chose to do so anyways. That is a huge problem if big corporations are going to have that much control over the flow of information in this country.

And spare me your self-righteous nonsense. I strongly oppose all of those horrible caricatures you so easily assign to me. People can disagree about things without being evil in the process. It's ridiculous that you don't appear capable of grasping that.

#162 | Posted by BellRinger

Its hard to make a case youre being censored when ONE post isn't allowed but THOUSANDS of other LETHAL LIES and fake political propaganda articles are allowed.

I'm not assigning any of those groups characteristics to you. I'm asking you why you share a political agenda with nazis, klansmen, nazis, and confederates? Why do you read the same news sources? Get obsessed with the same propaganda conspiracies? March at the same rallies? Vote for the same candidiates? I'm not calling you evil, I'm asking you why your agenda so closely matches with groups that everyone knows are evil. If I were every at a march and I noticed everyone else marching for the same cause were nazis, klansmen, confederates, and fascists, it would certainly make me question my political agenda. Why doesn't it make you question yours?

#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 05:38 PM | Reply

#160 The problem is censorship.

#162 | Posted by BellRinger

That's BS by the way. The "laptop" story was around before it was "censored". What was the supposed scandal about the laptop that is supposed to be so terrifying?

#164 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 05:40 PM | Reply

#164. It was censored on huge powerful social media platforms.

For the record, I've never attended a political rally. I don't visit or take seriously sites like Newsmax or Palmer Report. I view groups like Proud Boys and Antifa with contempt. I strongly oppose violence in the name of a political cause. It is never OK to set a building on fire or storm the capitol building. I'm a small "l" Libertarian with a passion for civil liberties and holding the powerful accountable, regardless of political party or ideology.

#165 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 06:10 PM | Reply

If it was censored how does a dumbass like you know about it?

Because it wasn't censored.

#166 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2021-10-20 06:12 PM | Reply

For the record, I've never attended a political rally. I don't visit or take seriously sites like Newsmax or Palmer Report. I view groups like Proud Boys and Antifa with contempt. I strongly oppose violence in the name of a political cause. It is never OK to set a building on fire or storm the capitol building. I'm a small "l" Libertarian with a passion for civil liberties and holding the powerful accountable, regardless of political party or ideology.

#165 | Posted by BellRinger

So what? You spend all day at an online virtual political rally. Sharing talking points with nazis, fascists, confederates, and klansmen. You say you dont take their sites seriously but here you are spouting the same "laptop" crap those sites focus on.

Why do you share the same political goals, repeat the same talking points, and attack the same people as nazis, fascists, klansmen, and confederates? Do you think those are good people that agree with you?

Now YET AGAIN - what was so scandalous about the laptop that it had to be "censored"?

PS you dont give a damn about civil liberties or you wouldnt be fighting every day to help the party which is trying to replace democracy with fascism. Nor do you care about the powerful being held accountable or you wouldn't be fighting every day to help the party that ensured the most criminal president we've ever had avoided all accountability.

Youre just full of ---- and your peers are nazis, klansmen, and confederates.

#167 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 06:17 PM | Reply

#167. That was quite the litany of straw man.

#168 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 07:17 PM | Reply

#166 it was absolutely censored on social media. Do you dispute that?

I know about it because I'm a responsible consumer of news and politics. I make a point of diversifying where I go to keep up with news and politics. I try really hard not to fall prey to confirmation bias.

#169 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 07:21 PM | Reply

#166 it was absolutely censored on social media. Do you dispute that?

I know about it because I'm a responsible consumer of news and politics. I make a point of diversifying where I go to keep up with news and politics. I try really hard not to fall prey to confirmation bias.

#169 | Posted by BellRinger

I didn't dispute that. I disputed that it proves big tech is biased against your fascist cult when big tech DIDNT censor countless right wing propaganda articles that cost hundreds of thousands of lies or lead to an attempt to replace democracy with fascism.

You think it's just a coincidence that both you and all the fascists are freaking out about the same laptop? You are one of them. You believe what they believe. You consume what they consume, you vote for who they vote for, and you want what they want. Now what is that? Why do fascists, nazis, klansmen, and confederates fight for the same side that you do?

When you were a little boy and you learned about nazis and klansmen, did you ever imagine you'd end up passionately supporting the same political leaders that they do and attacking the same people they attack?

#170 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 08:00 PM | Reply

#170 When you get tired of falsely assigning positions to me that I haven't taken I might be willing to have a discussion with you.

#171 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:08 PM | Reply

#170 When you get tired of falsely assigning positions to me that I haven't taken I might be willing to have a discussion with you.

#171 | Posted by BellRinger

That's a cop out. I didn't assign you any positions. I asked why you're fighting for the side that has nazis and klansmen on it. YOU tell us your positions. YOU tell us why you are supporting the same leaders they support. We're dying to know. YOU tell us why you think having the party the nazis and putin support in power is something you've chosen to spend your time fighting for.

If you're going to help fascists end democracy, you'd at least better have a good reason.

#172 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 08:13 PM | Reply

I didn't assign you any positions.

Yes, you did. That sentence was immediately followed by this:

I asked why you're fighting for the side that has nazis and klansmen on it. YOU tell us your positions. YOU tell us why you are supporting the same leaders they support. We're dying to know. YOU tell us why you think having the party the nazis and putin support in power is something you've chosen to spend your time fighting for.

I don't support any of that and I am not going to waste my time defending myself from positions I've never taken. If you want to have an adult conversation, I am up for it. I will not waste my time with what you are pushing.

#173 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:17 PM | Reply

" I don't support any of that"

Don't look now, but that wasn't his point. His point was you support the people who support ALL of that.

#174 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 08:19 PM | Reply

I don't support any of that and I am not going to waste my time defending myself from positions I've never taken. If you want to have an adult conversation, I am up for it. I will not waste my time with what you are pushing.

#173 | Posted by BellRinger

You're trapped in a corner so you're pretending to be "above the debate" as a reason to quit and run away.

You support all of it because that's the agenda you spend every day fighting for on this site. Unless you just like spending all your time fighting for an agenda you don't support.

Why do you, nazis, putin, fascists, klansmen, and confederates want the same party in power in america?

#175 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Don't look now, but that wasn't his point. His point was you support the people who support ALL of that.

#174 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2021-10-20 08:19 PM

That is false too. Nazi's and Klansmen. His words. Are you ------- kidding me? Go stick a plug where the sun doesn't shine if you are going to accuse me of supporting people who promote the extermination of 6 million Jews and support lynching, Jim Crow, etc.

You are serious dirt if you are going to accuse me of supporting any of that.

#176 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:28 PM | Reply

" You are serious dirt if you are going to accuse me of supporting any of that."

RIF. You support those who support that. Every time you go into the voting booth.

Oddly, I've pointed out the exact same thing to a poster under a prior name.

Could you please list your prior handles, or am I damned to hand you your backside again and again for all eternity?

#177 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

---- you, Danforth.

I've never voted for anyone who supports slaughtering 6 millions jews based solely upon their religious beliefs.

I know you are trolling a bit but this crosses a line.

#178 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:37 PM | Reply

That is false too. Nazi's and Klansmen. His words. Are you ------- kidding me? Go stick a plug where the sun doesn't shine if you are going to accuse me of supporting people who promote the extermination of 6 million Jews and support lynching, Jim Crow, etc.

You are serious dirt if you are going to accuse me of supporting any of that.

#176 | Posted by BellRinger

Can you not read? I asked why you support the same leaders as those people.
A question you still haven't answered.

Nazis, klansmen, fascists, and confederates love trump more than any leader in modern history. They fight everyday online, just like you, to attack trumps enemies, echo his conspiracy theories, just like you, and vote republican, just like you. You SAY you didn't vote for trump, but you're a foot soldier in his fascist uprising whether you actually pulled the lever for him or not.

#179 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 08:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would love for you to make these allegations to my face. I am no internet tough guy and I might respond by mocking you for drinking Zima. If such interaction resulted in a fist-fight I have no idea if I'd win. I will tell you this, if I were to lose I'd do everything in my power to make it a Pyrrhic victory for you.

#180 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:40 PM | Reply

#179 I am not going to defend myself from positions that you've falsely assigned to me that I have not taken. I've been very clear about that. You don't get to assign to me what I support. That's not how it works. I could just as easily falsely accuse you of supporting Communism murdering more than 100 million people over the course of the 20th century. Whilst you absolutely support some basic tenets of Marxism I don't believe for a moment you support a monster like Mao or Stalin. Please don't prove me wrong about that.

#181 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:44 PM | Reply

#179 I am not going to defend myself from positions that you've falsely assigned to me that I have not taken. I've been very clear about that. You don't get to assign to me what I support. That's not how it works. I could just as easily falsely accuse you of supporting Communism murdering more than 100 million people over the course of the 20th century. Whilst you absolutely support some basic tenets of Marxism I don't believe for a moment you support a monster like Mao or Stalin. Please don't prove me wrong about that.

#181 | Posted by BellRinger

You reveal what you support every day. No one has to assume or assign anything idiot. You support them by saying 1/6 wasnt as bad as BLM (every.day.) You support them by acting like hunter biden's laptop is a huge scandal that we should be discussing, while 1/6 is no big deal and everyone should shut up about it.

You support the party of fascism. The party led by a fascist tyrant who wants to end democracy. The party that is going along with replacing democracy with fascism. The party that the klan loves.

I'm not saying you hate black people. I'm saying the people who do hate black people spend their days trying to get the same party elected that you are. How come?

#182 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 08:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#182 How many times do I have to tell you I am not going to respond to straw man arguments.

Either grow up and treat me the way I've treated you, or piss off. This is ridiculous.

#183 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:54 PM | Reply

I'm a small "l" Libertarian with a passion for civil liberties and holding the powerful accountable, regardless of political party or ideology.
#165 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

--------.

If you supported civil liberties, you'd support Facebook's right to publish whatever they like.

#184 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 08:55 PM | Reply

"I've never voted for anyone who supports slaughtering 6 millions jews based solely upon their religious beliefs."

I like how you had to qualify the reason that they were being slaughtered.

Good job leaving the door open to slaughter them for other reasons!

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#182 I don't like many politicians. I really like Senator Tim Scott. He's a black man. Go figure. I also really admire and resect Thomas Sowell. MLK? No-brainer. He should be as revered as our founders. Incredible advancement of human rights for blacks.

I suspect you despise Scott and Sowell and pay lip-service to MLK.

#186 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 08:59 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

One thing I've observed about you is that you are habitually dishonest.

I point that observation out to explain why I mostly ignore you. I see your posts. I abhor the dishonesty.

#187 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 09:03 PM | Reply

#182 How many times do I have to tell you I am not going to respond to straw man arguments.

Either grow up and treat me the way I've treated you, or piss off. This is ridiculous.

#183 | Posted by BellRinger

Yeah it is ridiculous.
You're just refusing to answer simple questions and saying it's a straw man. What part of it is a straw man? You can't deny that you're fighting alongside nazis and klansmen so you're saying it's not fair to point that out.

Youre one to tell people to grow up while saying you wont play ball unless people stop asking you hard questions.

#188 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I suspect you despise Scott and Sowell and pay lip-service to MLK.

#186 | Posted by BellRinger

I am not going to defend myself from positions that you've falsely assigned to me that I have not taken.

#181 | Posted by BellRinger

#189 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 09:05 PM | Reply

#189 Look at the word "suspect", as a verb.

I didn't assign that as a position. I guessed that is how you feel. Scroll up and you will see that I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times - a courtesy you NEVER reciprocated with, BTW.

#190 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 09:08 PM | Reply

I didn't assign that as a position. I guessed that is how you feel. Scroll up and you will see that I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times - a courtesy you NEVER reciprocated with, BTW.

#190 | Posted by BellRinger

what position did i assign you? Your support for the republican party?

Go ahead. Say you dont support them so we can all laugh at you.

#191 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-10-20 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy,
One thing I've observed about you is that you are habitually dishonest.
#187 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Everyone here can tell which of us is the dishonest one.

Case in point: You can't even say your last username.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-10-20 09:31 PM | Reply

JJ try to be honest for once.

#193 | Posted by bored at 2021-10-20 09:49 PM | Reply

"I've never voted for anyone who supports slaughtering 6 millions jews based solely upon their religious beliefs. "

Now replace jews with muslims.

#194 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 10:35 PM | Reply

"One thing I've observed about you is that you are habitually dishonest."

Aren't you the guy who keeps making claims debunked by a single post?

Tell us again about the meaning of 230.

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 10:40 PM | Reply

"Case in point: You can't even say your last username. "

Additional case in point: we're almost at 200 posts, and he still can't articulate the scandal behind HB's laptop.

Hey Bellringer, here's a reference you'll understand: WHERE'S THE BEEF?

#196 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-20 10:45 PM | Reply

#196 I've articulated numerous times that whether or not what has been revealed on his laptop is scandalous is up to debate. I've also argued that it was and is an absolutely legitimate news story and it was suppressed by big tech during an election in unpreceennted fashion.

#197 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 11:24 PM | Reply

what position did i assign you? Your support for the republican party?

Go ahead. Say you dont support them so we can all laugh at you.

#191 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2021-10-20 09:09 PM

Well, I'm a small "l" libertarian and didn't vote for Trump. But your post was very revealing. From what I read, according to you, anyone who votes GOP for any reason at all, supports the slaughter of 6 million Jews based solely on their religion - the same party that is demonstrably more supportive of the Jewish state than Democrats (who, with the rarest of exceptions, if at all, staunchly oppose the Holocaust).

You really are disgusting with all of this.

#198 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 11:29 PM | Reply

Now replace jews with muslims.

#194 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Ok. Have at it. Other than the CCP I am not aware of any government or person who has influence outside of their own basement who is calling for Muslims to receive the Nazi Holocaust treatment.

#199 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-20 11:35 PM | Reply

" I've articulated numerous times that whether or not what has been revealed on his laptop is scandalous is up to debate"

So it's really really really really really important and scandalous ...

... but 200 posts later, you just can't say why.

IOW, it just might be is enough to destroy.

#200 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-21 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've also argued that it was and is an absolutely legitimate news story"

If there are no specific charges, it's just a smear story.

Here's your chance: WHERE'S THE BEEF?

#201 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-21 12:10 AM | Reply

" Ok. Have at it."

You really don't want me to reference Republicans post 9-11.

#202 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-21 12:11 AM | Reply

" I've articulated numerous times that whether or not what has been revealed on his laptop is scandalous is up to debate."

Then why do you question some editors, after seeing all the evidence proffered, came down on the side of "you're pulling my f^^king leg" ... ?

Oh sorry, my bad: ALL editors. Except the Post, whose author refused the front page byline ... you know, like reporters always do with bombshell stories.

Are you really dumb as a post, or are you pretending?

#203 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-21 12:23 AM | Reply

"From what I read, according to you, anyone who votes GOP for any reason at all, supports the slaughter of 6 million Jews based solely on their religion "

Stop your whining and pearl clutching. The point was, marchers who chanted "Jews will not replace it" didn't dissuade you from voting Republican last time. Nor will it stop you from voting for those who give them political cover next time.

#204 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-10-21 12:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Anyone still voting for the GQP doesn't have a problem with 700,000+ dead Americans.

That's for sure.

#205 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-10-21 12:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#204. Now do AOC, Tlaib and Ilhann Omar you fricking hypocrite.

On one side you cite basement dwellers. On the other you ignore very prominent elected officials with in a political party you shill for.

People who live on glass houses ...

#206 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-10-21 06:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort