oromagi

->@oromagi

sorry, too obv attempt to derail this thread

Your included a mention of fake news. Don't you think we should define what precisely fake means before we can know what we are each talking about? 

• You have already literally defined all news stories ever written as fake news:
  

I would dismiss any source that is not completely free of any sort of bias or of unethical things like sensationalism etc.

• Isn't any rational definiton in the face of such mad extremity just pearls before swine?

• This dynamic essentially dooms the Republican Party to Trumpism for the rest of Trump's life.  So long as Trump is running or likely to run, he can claim that any investigation into his many, many criminal activities is tyranny.  Therefore, Trump's best protection against investigation is to run for President.  Therefore, it doesn't matter if the entire Republican opposes, he will run for President in 2024.  If DeSantis or some other candidate beats him in the primary, he will form a MAGA party and run as an Independent.  If he loses in 2024 he will run in 2028.  There's no downside for Trump to keep running and any downside for the GOP is not a factor for Trump
  

Special investigations into political opponents? Indicting the opposition? This isn't democracy. This is tyranny. Biden is officially a dictator.

-->@oromagi

Cross thread contamination. 

Also where is your answer to what I asked. I thought you would be kind enough to answer me when I decided to be nice enough to answer you. 

Except here is her....blah,blah....   Conservatives generally are not for silencing others' free speech.

• None of which contradicts what I said-
  
• She was a Republican five minutes ago
  
• She was the most right-wing person in the room
  
• Again, there is no overlap between Republicanism and Conservativism in American.  You can't be both and be ideologically consistent in the age of MAGA.

-->@oromagi

I disagree. Conservative means something totally different depending on the location.

There's the George Washingtons of the country's founding who were less concerned about freedom, rights, and limited government and more concerned with making Christianity the public and private religion and practice of every citizen and creating a strong federalized government that legislates morality, (See Washington's Circular to the State Governments)

and then there were the Thomas Jeffersons and James Madisons who were concerned with defending individual liberty and natural rights. (See Madison's remonstrance of a state religion and Jefferson's writings on Virginia).

Today, these groups would roughly coincide with the Paleoconservatives and the Libertarians.

Both are at war with each other for control of conservatism and call the other one a traitor to the founding of the nation. 

The Republican Party base, on the other hand,  is tired of the establishment. 

One day I hope to start a news company that randomly picks articles to write using a random number generator and then have them just dryly state the facts in an unbiased way.  Maybe give full context to things.

Trump is a million times more conservative than Joe Biden lmfao

• Strongly disagree on even just the most superficial, objective basis.  Anybody who thinks Trump hold some conservative value somewhere is profoundly mistaken.  Trump has no ideology.  Trump has no values.  Every Republican in America could take a solemn oath tomorrow to never vote for Trump again and he will still run again because that is his chance at surviving all the lawsuits and criminal investigations.  

It’s how “conservatives” would rather vote for a moron with policies that are anti-thetical to everything they believe in because they hate Trump

Somebody summarize this for me. 

My definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view,

• Then we agree that Kimmett is not a preferable source for getting the truth of the matter in question.
  
• Do we also agree that Zheng is innocent of these charges until any evidence is made public?
  
• Can we also agree that an election referee in charge of of the conduct of all poll workers should not also retain an office within the leadership of one particular political party with a stake in that election , even if just for the sake of maintaining the appearance of objectivity and whether or not there's any actual evidence of corrupt malfeasance  at play.

-->@oromagi

admit that Kimmett has political skin in the game and is not a nonpartisan oberver/reporter of facts here, or

tell another lie.

Ah, yes. Framing the question to suit your end goals using an irrelevant either/or fallacy. Another classic propaganda technique used to steer conversations against the real issues and toward the propagandist's aims.

Kimmit was a brave whistleblower who uncovered a conspiracy to brainwash children with racist propaganda and lie to their parents about it. This is admirable, courageous, and patriotic behavior. Anyone who fights racism and uncovers conspiracies to manipulate children is good people.

In this article, He posted the DNC, GOP, and Zheng's statements, demonstrating first-rate reporting ability and skill. Posting sources from all sides of the issue is the pinnacle of balanced reporting. To assert this brave whistleblower who presented a balanced coverage of events is a "hack" is to assert that good journalistic ethics do not matter to news reporting. Do you believe there should be no ethics in journalism?

Moreover, to assert, without evidence, that the GOP is engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the election is uncalled for, hypocritical, and demonstratively predatory language. 

There is no reason to assert that Zheng is innocent and the GOP guilty when the Democrats are in the midst of losing the House and possibly the Senate, giving the DNC clear motive to engage in ballot rigging and other efforts to defraud the 2022 election.

• You are just repeating yourself and obviously dissembling.
  
• No honest person would fail to admit that Kimmett is not an objective observer here.  
  
• I already demonstrated that Kimmett failed to report that Sheller is both top GOP and the Election administrator who fired Zheng.  No honest report would fail to disclose that conflict of interest and there is zero possibillity that Kimmett was not aware of that conflict of interest.
  
• The objective, conservative Indianapolis Star did report the essential conflict that the GOP and KImmett covered up.
  
• I do not assert that Zheng is innocent.  You are the only one deceptively asserting facts that you do not know to be true here.
  
• The GOP's guilt in manufacturing election fake news is manifest, whatever the truth turn out to be here.
  

->@oromagi

Why risk criminal behavior if there's not possible benefit?

You'll have to ask Zheng.

Why do keep asking questions I have already answered? 

Because you didn't answer them. You engaged in loaded language and assailed the GOP with a cherry-picked opinion of events.

To assert, without evidence, that the GOP engaged in a conspiracy to commit election interference makes you a conspiracy theorist.

-->@oromagi

We agree that your source is an ex-teacher from Indianapolis who was fired last year for leaking documents for polticial attention and therefore not a real reporter of facts or an unbiased source for your claims. I have no idea what the law has to do with this obvious fact discrediting your source.

I don't agree with that at all. He was a whistleblower who bravely exposed a conspiracy to lie to the general public and teach children racist and derogatory beliefs about their fellow Americans.

He was fired for uncovering a conspiracy. He was not fired "for political attention."

I suppose you think James Comey is a hack as well, since he leaked documents about Trump to the press. 

If you think this whistleblower who uncovered a conspiracy to defraud the American people is a hack then you should believe the same thing about James Comey.

• Try to focus, man.  Whatever your poltical spin is on Tony Kimmett you can either 
  
• admit that Kimmett has political skin in the game and is not a nonpartisan oberver/reporter of facts here, or
  
• tell another lie.
  
• Your choice.

Zheng says he was fired at 7:40 Thursday night- after voting had completed for the day.

He can say whatever he wants. That doesn't mean he isn't lying. We already have witnesses. Let's let the witnesses speak.

I'd like to remind you of the Kavanaugh trial where specific bullshit details were used to frame Kavanaugh of a crime he never committed and wasn't even there at the scene. Liars use details to appear honest.

08.04.22

FBI DIRECTOR CONFIRMS AGENCY SENT TIPS FROM KAVANAUGH TIP LINE TO TRUMP WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT INVESTIGATION
Trump White House also determined which witnesses the FBI should interview. 4,500 tips to FBI went uninvestigated.

Washington, DC – In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today received confirmation from FBI Director Christopher Wray that the FBI sent tips that the agency had collected about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Trump White House without investigation.  The tips were collected through the FBI’s existing tip line as part of a supplemental background investigation after allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Justice Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation process.  Wray also confirmed that the Trump White House directed which witnesses the FBI was permitted to interview.

“You reviewed them for purposes of separating from tip line traffic but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?” Whitehouse asked in reference to the more than 4,500 tips collected by the FBI.
Director Wray responded, “Correct.”

When asked by Whitehouse whether the FBI took direction from the Trump White House as to whom the FBI could question, Wray responded that the agency did take direction from the White House since it was the requesting entity.

Following the exchange, Whitehouse posted to Twitter, “Here’s a thought:  nothing prevented Trump White House from using FBI tip line information to direct FBI investigation away from percipient or corroborating witnesses.”

For years since Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Whitehouse has doggedly sought answers from the FBI about its treatment of information submitted through the tip line.  The FBI has provided delayed and incomplete information in response to the Senator’s oversight inquiries.  In today’s hearing,

Whitehouse pledged to submit a report to the Judiciary Committee outlining the FBI’s handling of the tip line.  The FBI’s process for such investigations remains highly relevant because the Senate relies on the results of the FBI’s investigations to carry out its advice and consent duties for nominations.

Watch the full questioning here.

Whitehouse initially questioned Director Wray about the inadequate supplemental background investigation in a Judiciary Committee hearing in July 2019. 

Whitehouse noted that the only conduit for information potentially relevant to the allegations was the tip line, the product of which was apparently never pursued by the Bureau.  During that hearing, Wray echoed Republican claims that the FBI conducted the investigation “by the book,” while asserting that supplemental background investigations are less rigorous than criminal and counterintelligence investigations.

The following month, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Whitehouse wrote to Wray asking for a complete picture of how the FBI handled the supplemental background investigation of Kavanaugh.  They asked why the FBI failed to contact witnesses whose names were provided to the FBI as possessing “highly relevant” information; how involved the Trump White House was in narrowing the scope of the investigation; whether the FBI had used a tip line in previous background investigations to manage incoming allegations and information regarding a nominee; and more.

Nearly two years later and after repeated follow-up requests, the FBI finally responded to the Senators’ questions. The June 2021 letter from the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs revealed new information on the Kavanaugh investigation, including that the tip line received “over 4,500 tips, including phone calls and electronic submissions.”  By the FBI’s own account, it merely “provided all relevant tips” to Trump’s Office of White House Counsel, the very office that had constrained and directed the limited investigation.

Last summer, Whitehouse and a number of colleagues wrote to Director Wray requesting additional information on the FBI’s supplemental background investigation of Justice Kavanaugh. 

“If the FBI was not authorized to or did not follow up on any of the tips that it received from the tip line, it is difficult to understand the point of having a tip line at all,” the Senators wrote at the time.

Earlier this year, Whitehouse and his colleagues wrote again to Director Wray, Attorney General Garland, and the White House Counsel’s Office requesting answers to the Senators’ remaining outstanding questions, and providing an overview of what the Senators have learned to date.  The Senators have not yet received any responses.

-->@oromagi

As a democrat in a county that hasn't voted for a democratic president since 1924, Zheng has no motivation to break election laws-

Yes he does. Significantly moreso than a safe red district would. You don't cheat where you'll already win. You cheat where you'll lose.

What reason would republicans have to cheat in a safe red district? It is safe red lmao.

• I answered this in POST #27.  You clearly read it because you just tried to reply to it.  
  
• Why do keep asking questions I have already answered? 

Let's recall that Republicans have a very long history of falsifying reports and evidence of election fraud that Trump has escalated into a reckless cult of fake news after the last election. 

https://www.hereistheevidence.com/

Go ham.

-->@oromagi

inappropriately sharing student files with media= leaking the curriculum

You clearly are ignorant of the law. Student files are personal records. Curriculums are public documents.

Don't use loaded language and then pretend it isn't loaded. Only propagandists and hacks do that.

What makes you think he wasn't being partisan and the GOP people were?

What rational basis do you have for the person with witnesses against them being innocent?

You went into great lengths but never actually responded to that.

-->@oromagi

Why do you assume the person with witnesses against them is innocent snd the person who did their job is guilty?

• I just explained that in great detail.  Your lack of comprehension does not merit a new detailed reply

Do you think the person's actions were ethical or unethical? 

At the local level, most election officials are selected in a manner that is inherently partisan, meaning the candidate runs for the office with a party affiliation or is appointed to a partisan board. A minority are hired without consideration for party affiliation or are elected in nonpartisan races. Research conducted in 2006 indicates that roughly 60% of local election officials are elected or appointed in a partisan manner. 

These structures make the U.S. an outlier in the democratic world. Constitutionally independent bodies run elections in more than 70 countries, and many others rely on technocratic government agencies distanced in some manner from political influence. The U.S. is the only country that elects most of its election officials, and one of very few to allow high-ranking party members to lead election administration.  

This is an inappropriate mixing of duties. Shame on Indiana

So what is the "procedure" when an illegal invader checks both of those boxes, whether by mistake or intentional?

• It is all right there in the AP article you cited but (apparently, naturally) failed to read:
  

"Under the current process, the RMV provides the secretary of state’s office with all the relevant information for voter registration -- such as an applicant’s name, date of birth and address -- and can provide additional information to further verify voting eligibility,said Debra O’Malley, Galvin’s spokesperson.

“They send over a batch of registrations each night to our office, which are then distributed to the appropriate cities and towns for local election official review and certification,” she said by email. “The RMV has a record of what evidence of lawful presence has been provided and removes from those batches anyone who hasn’t provided them with a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. passport, or U.S. naturalization papers.”

• Also worth noting this detail:
  

Additionally, 16 other states and the District of Columbia have enacted similar laws and have not reported non-citizens being illegally permitted to vote

• Several states have actually made clerical errors that registered non-citizens as voters or encouraged non-citizens to vote. 
  
• Some pretty good research of the 2008 and 2010 elections suggested that 1.5-3% of non-citizens self-reported voting in an election which certainly suggests that the number is larger than zero.  Still, actual reported instances of any non-citizen vote in 2020 is zero, as far as I can tell.
  
• Federal law started prohibiting non-citizen voting in 1996 but exempted non-citizens who had good reason to believe they were eligible.
  
• Every State prohibited non-citizen voting by 1926 but many local jurisdiction retain the authority to decide who votes in local elections and some have recently permitted local voting by non-citizens.

>@oromagi

According to the dictionary definition, I am not wrong:

the practice of using illegal methods to obtain a particular result in an election:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ballot-rigging

 to control the results of the election dishonestly

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rig%20the%20ballot

By these definitions, Zheng committed vote rigging.

• Well I agree that "illegal methods" is generic enough to cover the fake news allegation vs Zheng. 
  
• I've never heard an illegal vote referred to as "vote rigging."  Rigging an election seems to be a term reserved for vote counters, not voters.
• To say that Zheng controlled the results of an election wherein his GOP accuser and the referee in charge of reviewing that accusation are, in fact, the same woman, is a gross distortion.  Obviously, Beth Sheller is in control of election results in Hamilton County, not Zheng.
  

->@oromagi

If an authority said the world would end tomorrow you'd believe it lmao.

Anyways, in the original article I cited they updated it twice with the GOP, DNC, and actual person's statements in PDFs. So it was much more balanced that your "balanced" source.

Secondly, what does reporting on an instance of voter fraud have to do with the Illinois public school system?

your reason for him being fired is completely wrong. He was fired for leaking the curriculum:

But back to the fraudster in the article:

WIBC reports that the election administrator confirmed the claims:

Hamilton County election administrator Beth Sheller stated that the poll inspector had learned of two separate incidents last week that could qualify as election interference.

I trust a source more that posts all the requisite testimonies for anyone to read over any source that doesn't. But, if you would rather trust sources that obscure the facts and avoid giving their readers direct access to information, then that is your choice.

Dr. Fauci:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDhuTX9K-3I

In the video the person literally quotes Dr. Fauci verbatim.

2:21

but gain a function still still continued at the university of north carolina research 

2:24

north carolina research later that we shared with dr she the bat lady

2:42

scientists to pause their gof studies dr fauci offshored that offshored the paws research to china not once but twice in 2012 dr fauci gave a new grant to peter dasik's eco health alliance for influence research in china and then again in 2014 dr fauci gave another grant to dasic for sars research in china dasic partnered with who the wuhan institute of virology

Do I need more or will you concede now? 

-->@oromagi

Oh for goodness sake, just admit you agree Dr. Fauci said they perform gain of function research already.

That was the longest "well you're right but you're wrong because of some oddball definition" I ever read in my life.

They admitted it.

The NAIAD admitted it.

The fucking State Department admitted it.

Dr. Fauci later admitted it.

Dr. Fauci has a long history of contradicting himself and

he is responsible for fucking up the AIDS crisis.

He's a huckster and fraud:

Correct me if I misread your initial post, but it seemed like there was a clear distinction that she is calling them "bio labs", which are facilities that can research deadly pathogens. Russia seems to be the ones claiming that the facilities are biological weapons facilities, not her. So, if the US has funded facilities that research biological threats to people, then her statement wouldn't be false nor in any way traitorous. 

CARLSON:  Does Ukraine have biological weapons? Oh, Ukraine has biological research facilities. What? You mean secret bio labs like the secret bio labs Ukraine definitely doesn't have? Ukraine has those? Yes, it does.  And not only does Ukraine have secret bio labs, Toria Nuland said, whatever they're doing in those labs is so dangerous and so scary that she is quote, "quite concerned" that the so-called research material inside those bio labs might fall into the hands of Russian forces.  I am not trying to use profanity on the air to describe our reaction. Our jaws dropped. Let's leave it there.  Under oath in an open committee hearing, Toria Nuland just confirmed that the Russian disinformation they've been telling us for days is a lie and a conspiracy theory and crazy and immoral to believe, is in fact, totally and completely true. Whoa.

But you'll notice at the end of that Kirby refuses to answer the question. Has there been a relationship between the U.S. Pentagon and a bio weapons facility in Ukraine? And if so, what is that relationship? That's Russian disinformation. What's the answer? We're not developing WMD in Ukraine right now. Okay, got it.... Undersecretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and bio defense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities. What's the difference exactly?  You could describe our nuclear stockpile correctly as defensive. Our nuclear weapons are not designed to preemptively kill anybody. They're designed to prevent other people from killing us, but they're still nuclear weapons.   So when do you stop lying and telling us what's going on here?

We now know that dangerous biological agents, whether you call them weapons or not, is completely irrelevant, because they can be used as weapons. Is a gun or weapon? Not when you're quail hunting. When you're in a gunfight, it is. It's a ridiculous semantic debate.  Dangerous biological agents remain thanks to the Biden administration unsecured in a chaotic war zone.

So it's without even going into what they told us was Russian disinformation that is actually true, how concerned are you that Toria Nuland, who is overseeing this war has just admitted there are unsecure bio agents -- dangerous bio agents in Ukraine?

GABBARD: I'm extremely concerned as should be every American and everyone in the world. The seriousness of this situation really can't be overstated.  First of all, she didn't say no when she was asked by Marco Rubio about there being biological or chemical weapons in Ukraine.

CARLSON: Yes.

GABBARD: So if there were or are, obviously that would be a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention. Number two, they categorically have been trying to hide this as you've laid out very, very well. And then once they were found out, rather than saying: Hey, you know what, this is a critical emergency, it's a crisis. We have these pathogens in the midst of a warzone, not just in one location, but between 20 and 30 labs in Ukraine. This is a global crisis, we're going to take action immediately.

CARLSON: So, we're just getting this from the State Department. This is a tweet and I want to -- I'm reading this cold, but I want to run a bite.

"The United States does not have chemical or biological weapons labs in Ukraine." Then they put up a graphic that read: "The U.S. is in full compliance with its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention not to develop or possess biological weapons anywhere."

I can see about four holes in that. So if you were -- I mean, so they're telling us they don't own any bio labs in Ukraine. I don't remember -- I mean, one of the tells to lying is when you answer a question no one asked. I don't think anyone is suggesting the U.S. government owns bio labs there, right?

GABBARD: Exactly. That's right. That's right. But you pointed to evidence, and we've seen through different parts of the world. We saw in China how the U.S. is funding this research or these labs to the tune of hundreds around the world. Why? That question has never been asked or answered by them.

Why is this research something that that is so critical, not done in secure labs within the United States?

"deliberately infect" speaks to intent.

it's funny how your "editorial opinions" are not lies, but other people's "editorial opinions" are

"My authority says your authority is disinformation."

Do you dispute the fact that more than 10,000 epidemiologists, doctors, virologists, and more agreed to the declaration?

Do you claim that John Ionnidis is a hack?

Do you think Martin Kuldorff is a hack?

You made brazenly false claims about the Great Barrington Declaration. .

It also makes up unfounded claims about the GBD:

The Great Barrington Declaration suggests the U.S. should aim for this immune threshold through infection rather than vaccination.

No it doesn't. It says:

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

It does not, in any capacity tell people not to get vaccinated.

It also does not, in any capacity, says infection instead of vaccination is how to obtain the threshold. In fact they even approve of the odea of using vaccines, as evidenced from the statement bolded.

The article also makes another false claim abput the GBD:

First, the plan wrongly assumes that all healthy people can survive a coronavirus infection. Though at-risk groups do worse, young healthy people are also dying and facing long-term issues from the illness.

• I agree that GBD made no assumption that many young people would not die and that SA inaccurately, however charitiably, thought they might.
  

It actually says:

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

They then launch into a tirade against Sweden, which is one of the most successful countries against COVID-19:

Sweden  has managed to lower death rates with each new wave of infection while Denmark is currently at their highest amount of COVID deaths. Sweden simply front ended their deaths whereas Denmark is now dealing with them.  So to compare lockdowns to no lockdowns, Sweden is winning.

-->@oromagi

"deliberately infect" is my editorial comment

in other words, a lie

-->@oromagi

Because fake news sources like Magness find its so much easier to get people to believe a lie on youtube than in the written word.

Oh and I suppose the Associated Press and Wikipedia did SOOOO much better when they said Trump didn't collude with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Oh... Wait a minute... I had it in reverse... They lied out the ass for 4 years.

Also, I'd like you to tell me the moment "fake news" Magness says that NewsGuard is owned by Bill Gates in the video. Go ahead, I'll wait.

They don't do shitty work.