Biden, Warning Trump Could ‘Destroy’ Democracy, Moves Past GOP Primary

[Bkk Brian]

23 minutes ago, impulse said:

How's this for a definitive news source?  Western Journal, about as fair and balanced as WaPo:

 

Ex-Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Hijacked by US Intelligence for 'Info Warfare'

 

By the time of the Trump administration, Wikipedia’s perceived bias had intensified, and Sanger claimed that “no encyclopedia to my knowledge has been as biased as Wikipedia has been.”

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-ex-wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-hijacked-us-intelligence-info-warfare/

Oh the irony.....lol

 

Western Journal

consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/western-journalism/

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh the irony.....lol

 

Western Journal

consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/western-journalism/

That's what I said...  It's about as fair and balanced as WaPo.  Just a mirror image.  My experience of the WJ is that I've never identified an untruth.  But they do just cover one side, so perhaps deception by omission.  So they're not my only source. 

 

In this case, it's a Glenn Greenwald interview of one of the founders of Wikipedia.  Who would know better if the site's been hijacked?

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

That's what I said...  It's about as fair and balanced as WaPo.  Just a mirror image.  My experience of the WJ is that I've never identified an untruth.  But they do just cover one side, so perhaps deception by omission.  So they're not my only source. 

 

In this case, it's a Glenn Greenwald interview of one of the founders of Wikipedia.  Who would know better if the site's been hijacked?

 

Not quite the mirror you claim it to be:

 

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not quite the mirror you claim it to be:

 

Believing "fact checkers" is like believing Wikipedia.  Or WaPo.  Or WJ.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

Believing "fact checkers" is like believing Wikipedia.  Or WaPo.  Or WJ.

 

 

Yes lets not believe Wiki either eh, despite them having a transparent page on Larry and his criticisms of it

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 9/23/2023 at 11:18 AM, heybruce said:

I propose a new rule:  You can't use "woke" unless you can provide a generally accepted definition of the word.

 

The only generally accepted definition I know of is as the past tense of "wake".  Using that definition, and sense I prefer important decisions be made by people who are awake, I want the woke people to win.

Your premise is ok that a word should have a generally acceptable definition in order to hold sway... however you are rather off base concerning "woke" as only the past tense of wake... it has surpassed your intellectual capacity but nonetheless it has now become a neologism... 

[jerrymahoney]

I did not know who is Western Journal but their typeface logo seems a bit cheeky:

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

How's this for a definitive news source?  Western Journal, about as fair and balanced as WaPo:

 

Ex-Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Hijacked by US Intelligence for 'Info Warfare'

 

By the time of the Trump administration, Wikipedia’s perceived bias had intensified, and Sanger claimed that “no encyclopedia to my knowledge has been as biased as Wikipedia has been.”

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-ex-wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-hijacked-us-intelligence-info-warfare/

Sanger was with Wikipedia for its first year only. As I noted, Wikipedia provides plenty of footnotes to back up its reports.

[jerrymahoney]

Just to note: I have one totally non-politics entry on Wikipedia. It was a mini-war from those who opposed the entry and those that supported. One experienced editor came to my rescue else it never would have been included. Multiple footnotes as mentioned above.

 

Buddhism-related.

[Hanaguma]

Interesting that Joe suddenly has an interest in democracy. I guess he has already forgotten the peaceful transfer of power that happened in January 2021. His peaceful inauguration. The "very generous letter" (to quote the President) that Trump left for him in the Oval Office on inauguration day. The same Trump who wished the new administration "great luck and great success". 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-letter-to-biden/index.html

There is no threat to democracy. That idle paranoia is just being used as a scare tactic by the left to promote fear and division. 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Your premise is ok that a word should have a generally acceptable definition in order to hold sway... however you are rather off base concerning "woke" as only the past tense of wake... it has surpassed your intellectual capacity but nonetheless it has now become a neologism... 

Show us where it has become a neologism.

 

There is no mention of the word as it is misused here

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/woke-meaning-origin

 

btw: MAGA is a neologism for "racist scum".

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Believing "fact checkers" is like believing Wikipedia.  Or WaPo.  Or WJ.

Unless you have the resources to research important news yourself, you either believe in fact checkers or you disappear down a rabbit hole of lies, fantasies and conspiracies.

[heybruce]

58 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Your premise is ok that a word should have a generally acceptable definition in order to hold sway... however you are rather off base concerning "woke" as only the past tense of wake... it has surpassed your intellectual capacity but nonetheless it has now become a neologism... 

Why don't you give us this generally accepted alternate definition of woke?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

How's this for a definitive news source?  Western Journal, about as fair and balanced as WaPo:

 

Ex-Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Hijacked by US Intelligence for 'Info Warfare'

 

By the time of the Trump administration, Wikipedia’s perceived bias had intensified, and Sanger claimed that “no encyclopedia to my knowledge has been as biased as Wikipedia has been.”

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-ex-wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-hijacked-us-intelligence-info-warfare/

A fine conspiracy theory post.

 

From your link:

 

"The CIA and FBI were found to have edited numerous articles, removing incriminating information, Huffington Post reported in 2008."

"For instance, the CIA used its computers to remove casualty counts from the Iraq War, while the FBI removed images of Guantanamo Bay and edited articles on various subjects."

 

Funny that it doesn't give any examples post-2008, and that the examples given are hardly earth-shattering revelations.  I wonder how many individuals and businesses attempt to remove embarrassing information from Wikipedia.

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Interesting that Joe suddenly has an interest in democracy. I guess he has already forgotten the peaceful transfer of power that happened in January 2021. His peaceful inauguration. The "very generous letter" (to quote the President) that Trump left for him in the Oval Office on inauguration day. The same Trump who wished the new administration "great luck and great success". 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/trump-letter-to-biden/index.html

There is no threat to democracy. That idle paranoia is just being used as a scare tactic by the left to promote fear and division. 

The same magnanimous Trump who broke with a long tradition of attending the inauguration of his succecessor?

The same Trump who new evidence shows was involved with creating slates of fake electors?

The same Trump who pressured election officials to reverse the results of various state elections?

The same Trump who refused to intervene after insurrectionists invaded the Capitol?

 

[ozimoron]

39 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A fine conspiracy theory post.

 

From your link:

 

"The CIA and FBI were found to have edited numerous articles, removing incriminating information, Huffington Post reported in 2008."

"For instance, the CIA used its computers to remove casualty counts from the Iraq War, while the FBI removed images of Guantanamo Bay and edited articles on various subjects."

 

Funny that it doesn't give any examples post-2008, and that the examples given are hardly earth-shattering revelations.  I wonder how many individuals and businesses attempt to remove embarrassing information from Wikipedia.

In wiki, everything is removed that can't be factually substantiated. I suspect the CIA used this feature to remove inaccurate information.

[Hanaguma]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The same magnanimous Trump who broke with a long tradition of attending the inauguration of his succecessor?

The same Trump who new evidence shows was involved with creating slates of fake electors?

The same Trump who pressured election officials to reverse the results of various state elections?

The same Trump who refused to intervene after insurrectionists invaded the Capitol?

 

Yep, that's him. The great threat to democracy /s

 

If there ever were a threat, it ended on Jan 20 2021 when Biden was inaugurated. The rest is all posturing and preening, and massive ego on the part of the losing candidate (Trump).

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yep, that's him. The great threat to democracy /s

 

If there ever were a threat, it ended on Jan 20 2021 when Biden was inaugurated. The rest is all posturing and preening, and massive ego on the part of the losing candidate (Trump).

The threat continues so long as the Republican party is the party of Trump.

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The threat continues so long as the Republican party is the party of Trump.

Sorry, but no.  Time to move on.  The peaceful transition of power after the last election is the only evidence needed that hysteria over "the threat" is overblown.

[Tug]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sorry, but no.  Time to move on.  The peaceful transition of power after the last election is the only evidence needed that hysteria over "the threat" is overblown.

Ahhh nope he’s still a clear and present danger we must keep our guard up although I do agree the real magganuts are few if they do choose violence they will be easily squashed like a cockroach 

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ahhh nope he’s still a clear and present danger we must keep our guard up although I do agree the real magganuts are few if they do choose violence they will be easily squashed like a cockroach 

What possible danger? The precedent is set with the previous election. He can huff and puff but in the end nothing will happen. Have a little more faith in your fellow citizens and the system that the Founding Fathers left you. 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sorry, but no.  Time to move on.  The peaceful transition of power after the last election is the only evidence needed that hysteria over "the threat" is overblown.

GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin scheme to remove elections chief

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/29/a-wisconsin-election-official-has-bipartisan-support-she-may-be-driven-out-anyway-00113233

 

2 controversial votes at Wisconsin's state Capitol show GOP efforts to shape elections

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/15/1199740670/wisconsin-election-battles-protasiewicz-wolfe-republicans

 

North Carolina Republicans’ naked bid for more control over elections, explained
The GOP-dominated state legislature wants more power over the 2024 contest.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/9/25/23889465/north-carolina-republicans-elections

[Tug]

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

What possible danger? The precedent is set with the previous election. He can huff and puff but in the end nothing will happen. Have a little more faith in your fellow citizens and the system that the Founding Fathers left you. 

Only fools allow them selves to be lulled into believing Trump cannot win with the electoral college he still has a chance what comes to my mind is why someone would try to lull folks into a false sense of safety what’s the motive……..

[Hanaguma]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

Only fools allow them selves to be lulled into believing Trump cannot win with the electoral college he still has a chance what comes to my mind is why someone would try to lull folks into a false sense of safety what’s the motive……..

Of course he has a chance.... IF he is the GOP nominee and if he, as you say, wins the Electoral College.  That is the constitutional republic in action.  Ditto if Biden wins again (if he is the Democratic nominee). 

 

Hyperventilating not necessary. 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why don't you give us this generally accepted alternate definition of woke?

Woke is the belief that mine (ours) is obviously the only correct answer on an issue, and if you disagree, you're not only wrong, you’re intellectually inferior to us and should be granted no voice.  Further characterized by a penchant for finding offense, misogyny, racism and XYZphobia where none exists.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

What possible danger? The precedent is set with the previous election. He can huff and puff but in the end nothing will happen. Have a little more faith in your fellow citizens and the system that the Founding Fathers left you. 

The precedent of a peaceful transition was destroyed by Trump's MAGA rioters, Trump's continued refusal to admit that he lost, and the MAGA faithful's idiotic belief that Trump won.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Woke is the belief that mine (ours) is obviously the only correct answer on an issue, and if you disagree, you're not only wrong, you’re intellectually inferior to us and should be granted no voice.  Further characterized by a penchant for finding offense, misogyny, racism and XYZphobia where none exists.

That's your "unique" (imaginary?) definition.  It's not the accepted definition.

[Skipalongcassidy]

21 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Show us where it has become a neologism.

 

There is no mention of the word as it is misused here

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/woke-meaning-origin

 

btw: MAGA is a neologism for "racist scum".

 

 

I really didn't expect that you would understand... but since you asked... https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Woke

[Skipalongcassidy]

21 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why don't you give us this generally accepted alternate definition of woke?

I didn't expect you to understand either... so ... https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Woke

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/26/2023 at 1:04 PM, Skipalongcassidy said:

Your premise is ok that a word should have a generally acceptable definition in order to hold sway... however you are rather off base concerning "woke" as only the past tense of wake... it has surpassed your intellectual capacity but nonetheless it has now become a neologism... 

Far as I know Obama was the first to use that word on a public platform. Should he have had to provide a definition?